fuels institute case competition: future of … fuels institute case...fuels institute case...

2016 Fuels Institute Case Competition: Future of Transportation

2016 Fuels Institute Case Competition: Future of Transportation

3

6

26

47

About the Fuels Institute

Case Competition WinnersUniversity of California, BerkeleyNatural Gas and Electricity: Bridging America’s Transportation

Duke UniversityThe Smart E-Highway

Morgan State UniversityEidolon: Your Autonomous Chauffeur

Honorable MentionsClemson UniversityIn-Motion Wireless Power Transfer for Connected Electric Vehicles (CEVs)

Clemson UniversitySustainable Shared Mobility

University of Colorado at BoulderAutomation and Efficiency: Driverless Vehicles and the Hyperloop

63

88

105

3

About the Fuels Institute

Jay Ricker (Chairman)* Rickers

Robert Wimmer (Treasurer)* Toyota Motor North America Inc.

Jeremy Bezdek Flint Hills Resources

Mark DeVries* POET Ethanol Products

Matthew Forman* FCA

Steve Vander Griend ICM Inc.

Deborah Grimes Casey’s General Stores

Doug Haugh* Mansfield Oil Company

Norman Herrera Sparq Natural Gas LLC

Paul Kaper Gilbarco Veeder-Root

Tom Kloza OPIS

Anthony Lambkin Nissan North America

Steve Loehr* Kwik Trip Inc.

Brian Mandell* Phillips 66 Company

Jeff Morris* Alon USA

Derek Regal Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company LLC

Rob Sabia* Gulf Oil, Cumberland Gulf Group of Companies

Robert Stein Kalibrate

Norman Turiano* Turiano Strategic Consulting

Michael Whatley* Consumer Energy Alliance

Craig Willis Archer Daniels Midland Company

The Fuels Institute, founded by NACS in 2013, is a 501(c)

(4) non-profit research-oriented think tank dedicated to

evaluating the market issues related to vehicles and the fuels

that power them. By bringing together diverse stakeholders

of the transportation and fuels markets, the Institute helps

to identify opportunities and challenges associated with new

technologies and to facilitate industry coordination to help

ensure that consumers derive the greatest benefit.

The Fuels Institute commissions and publishes com-

prehensive, fact-based research projects that address the

interests of the affected stakeholders. Such publications will

help to inform both business owners considering long-term

investment decisions and policymakers considering legisla-

tion and regulations affecting the market. Our research is

independent and unbiased, designed to answer questions,

not advocate a specific outcome. Participants in the Fuels

Institute are dedicated to promoting facts and providing

decision makers with the most credible information possible,

so that the market can deliver the best in vehicle and fueling

options to the consumer. For more about the Fuels Institute,

visit www.fuelsinstitute.org.

Board of Advisors (*Denotes individual who also serves on Board of Directors)

4

Fuels Institute Staff

CORPORATE PARTNERS

Jeff Murphy Copec

Peter Davis GreenPrint LLC

Ian Walker NRC Realty & Capital Advisors

Mike Lorenz Sheetz Inc.

Stephen Brown Tesoro Companies Inc.

James Hervey Verifone

Scott Negley Wayne Fueling Systems

Tom Tietjen Xerxes Corporation

ASSOCIATION PARTNERS

Valerie Ughetta Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers

Ron Lamberty American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE)

Joe Gagliano CA Fuel Cell Partnership

Ezra Finkin Diesel Technology Forum

Robin Vercruse Fuel Freedom Foundation

Chris Bliley Growth Energy

Gregory Dolan Methanol Institute

Paige Anderson NACS

David Fialkov NATSO

Jeff Clarke NGV America

Bob Renkes Petroleum Equipment Institute

Rob Underwood Petroleum Marketers Association of America

Jeff Hove PMCI/RINAlliance Inc.

Robert White Renewable Fuels Association

Amy Rider SIGMA

Wayne Geyer STI/SPFA

Scott Fisher Texas Food & Fuel Association

Participants

Platinum Contributor NACS

Gold Contributors Archer Daniels Midland Company

Casey’s General Stores

Consumer Energy Alliance

FCA

Flint Hills Resources

ICM Inc.

Kalibrate

Nissan North America

OPIS

Phillips 66 Company

POET Ethanol Products

Sheetz Inc.

Tesoro Companies Inc.

Toyota Motor North Amer-ica Inc.

Silver Contributor Verifone

Bronze Contributors Copec

GreenPrint LLC

NRC Realty & Capital Advisors

Wayne Fueling Systems

Xerxes Corporation

Association Partners Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers

American Coalition for Ethanol

CA Fuel Cell Partnership

Diesel Technology Forum

Fuel Freedom Foundation

Growth Energy

Methanol Institute

NATSO

NGV America

Petroleum Equipment Institute

Petroleum Marketers Association of America

PMCI | RINAlliance Inc.

Renewable Fuels Association

SIGMA

STI/SPFA

Texas Food & Fuel Association

Financial Support

John Eichberger | Executive Director [email protected]

Donovan Woods | Director, Operations [email protected]

This year's Case Competition was made possible by support from Gilbarco Veeder-Root.

Fuels Institute Case Competition: Beyond Today – The Future of American Transportation

Natural Gas and Electricity: Bridging America’s Transportation

University of California, Berkeley

Negah Nafisi | 949.200.2596 | [email protected] Alana Siegner | 301.943.9504 | [email protected]

Mercedes Taylor | 703.598.0579 | [email protected]


Introduction

America’s current transportation sector reflects the 20th-century ideals of FDR’s

highway administration, formalized in the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 and based

on challenges and aspirations no longer relevant to our urbanizing society or changing

climate. America’s population is projected to surpass 400 million by 2050,1 further

increasing the strain on the country’s decaying transportation infrastructure and on the

environment as a whole. In light of this challenge, we envision an ideal future

transportation sector that is increasingly efficient and results in fewer greenhouse gas

emissions, which will be accomplished by updated infrastructure and the adoption of

alternative fuels.

To move the transportation sector towards this vision in the next 30 years, our

proposal has two specifics aims: the conversion of heavy-duty vehicles from their

current fuel (predominantly diesel) to adsorbed natural gas (ANG), and the passenger

vehicle sector’s transition to electric power provided by a cleaner grid. The conversion

to ANG will be effected immediately, while the shift of personal vehicles to electricity will

be accomplished more gradually over the 30-year period.

Although the shared economy and connected autonomous vehicles will change

the face of U.S. transportation in the next 30 years, creating policy to implement these

nascent technologies requires a better understanding of their promise and limitations

than is currently available. For that reason, we leave these technologies to be discussed

in a broader study.

Our vision is motivated by long-term social and economic goals, especially the

mitigation of climate change. The scientific consensus around climate change clearly


indicates that generating energy via the combustion of carbon-based fuels that emit

CO2 and other greenhouse gases is no longer feasible. Data supporting this conclusion

will not be discussed here. Instead, we assert that society must transition as quickly as

possible from liquid fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources. Although the most severe

consequences of America’s energy issues will occur outside the 30-year time frame of

this challenge, adverse climate-driven impacts are already being felt in the U.S. and

elsewhere; decisive action in the short term is the only way to prevent dire climate

scenarios in the future.

The transportation sector is an important target for such decisive action, as it is

responsible for a third of U.S. CO2 emissions (Fig. 1a) and relies predominantly on liquid

fuels like gasoline and diesel (Fig. 1b). The proposed shift to natural gas or electricity,

depending on the transportation subsector, will minimize disruption of existing industries

while benefiting consumers, the U.S. economy, and the global environmental outlook.

Solution Part I: Public Transit

The focus of this proposal is on the adoption of alternative fuels in heavy-duty

and personal vehicles. However, the renovation of public transit is equally crucial to our

overall vision of a cleaner and more efficient transportation sector and therefore merits

discussion in this work.

Although occupying only a small portion of America’s physical landscape (2.6%

in 2010), urban areas host a significant portion of the population (80.7% in 2010),2

making America’s current infrastructural emphasis on personal vehicles both

unnecessary and unsustainable. The high population density in urban areas leads to

high auto use and generates the most congested areas in the U.S. As the urban


population continues to grow, new spaces must be planned using transit-oriented-

development, and pre-existing urban areas must be retrofitted to incorporate or better

prioritize transit. Each part of the public transportation system will run on an alternative

energy most fitting for its range and cost requirements: heavy-duty and light-duty rail will

run on electricity, and buses will be powered by hydrogen fuel cells. Each technology is

already in use across the country and world, but all three have yet to be employed

throughout the American landscape through a contiguous network. Fortunately, since

America already has a large transportation network including many ancillary public

transit systems, connecting them through a comprehensive network is a matter of

additive strategic restructuring rather than a complete reconstruction.

With better access to reliable public transportation, individuals will be more likely

to choose public transit over personal vehicles.3 On an aggregate level, higher usage

will bring down the cost of individual trips on the system, making public transit even

more economically competitive.4 For car owners, the high costs associated with a

personal vehicle are overcome by freedom of movement and reduced travel time.

However, easily accessible and reliable public transit could offer these same benefits

with lower costs and without the responsibility of maintenance and parking. Shifting from

private automobile use to public transit offers health benefits, as well as environmental

ones. On average, public transit emits 95% less carbon monoxide, 92% fewer VOX,

45% less CO2, and 42% fewer nitrates than private vehicles, on a per mile travelled

basis.5 Finally, increased use of public transit infrastructure will assuage the strain on

the current roadway system. The many challenges posed by currently inadequate

transportation infrastructure will continue to get worse if the status quo remains; a shift


to public transportation will offer time, money, and health benefits to individuals and

society as a whole.

The public transit goals discussed above require extensive long-term planning,

modeling, and implementation based on specific locale. To meet the challenge of

realistic and tangible change within 30 years, this paper will offer detailed strategies

only regarding alternative fuels in personal and heavy-duty vehicles. However, it is

noted that improving and expanding the public transportation network is also necessary

for our overall long-term vision, but its details fall outside the scope of this proposal.

Solution Part 2: Personal Vehicles

America’s federal highway program left not only a physical legacy, but also a

behavioral one. Individuals in America tend to rely heavily on use of a personal vehicle

for mobility, with average national occupancy levels at a bleak 1.55 people per vehicle.6

For individuals set in their habits or situated in areas with high urban sprawl, switching

to public transit will be unlikely, and reliance on personal vehicles will persist. Therefore

the passenger vehicle market must be updated to encourage consumers to make

smarter choices for their wallet and for the environment.

With modern legislation like California’s Advanced Clean Car Program (ACCP) and

the Federal EV Everywhere program providing incentives for electric vehicle (EV)

purchase, America is already undergoing a transformation of its passenger fleet. At the

2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 21), 9 U.S. states and 4

countries all pledged to have 100% of their new passenger fleet 100% electric by 2050.7

By 2050, auto manufacturers like Toyota are planning to shift production completely to


vehicles with electric drives, further pointing both the American and international

passenger vehicle market towards electric and hydrogen fuel cell technologies.8

In order to ensure consumer adoption of these technologies, policy must

continue to be implemented to make EVs economically competitive on an initial-cost

basis. The state of California is a global leader in setting such standards, goals, and

restrictions. In addressing environmental, economic, and public health concerns,

Executive Order B-16-2012 was written into law by California Governor Edmund Brown

to “encourage the development and success of zero-emission vehicles to protect the

environment, stimulate economic growth and improve the quality of life.”9 To reach the

goal of having all passenger vehicles shift to having all electric drives within the next 30

years, California’s legislative efforts must be enacted on the federal level. The

Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries 2015 World Oil Outlook Report claims

that EVs will be irrelevant in 2040, with continued dominance of internal-combustion

engines in vehicles.10 However, the current rate of scientific research, corporate

investment, and governmental policies in support of EVs contradicts this assertion.

Federal policy providing a conglomerate of initiatives to induce market adoption

of EVs is essential in order to reach this 30-year vision. Passenger vehicle

manufacturers previously focused solely on gasoline- or diesel-powered vehicles have

been exploring alternative fuel and powertrain technologies for the past two decades.11

Federal policy encouraging technological innovation and advancement will push these

manufacturers in a direction the market has already been heading since the turn of the

millennium.12 Shifting energy sourcing from gasoline to electricity places increased

pressure on the nation's electricity grid, but if modeled properly, can act as a


complementary development of high renewable electric generation (e.g. connecting an

EV to the grid and using it to store electricity during peak generation). EVs also

decrease reliance on foreign and domestic oil, allowing for increased economic

independence. With proper framing in legislation, the liquid fuels industry’s current clout

can be shifted to producing cleaner energy through renewable energy farms, such as

solar, wind, or geothermal power. For consumers, this legislation will encourage a

quicker adoption of EV technology and charging infrastructure.

When looking at EVs, two benefits stand out: their tailpipe emissions and life-

cycle cost. Zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), including battery electric and hydrogen fuel

cell vehicles, have zero tailpipe emissions: during operations, they emit no GHG or

smog-forming pollutants, except from use of an air-conditioning component. Through

the lifetime of the vehicles, savings in cost associated with maintenance and fuel return

purchasing power to consumers’ pockets, offering further economic stimulation.13

Federal policy must include regulations to urge both consumers and producers

towards ZEVs. Regulations that mandate annual increases in the percent of passenger

vehicles sold that are ZEVs will encourage gradual but permanent change. The

incremental approach pioneered by California’s ACCP is an appropriate template for the

national legislation, taking complete ZEV penetration of the light-duty fleet as the 30-

year benchmark.

An incentive-driven program for consumers will encourage faster adoption and in

turn increase production volume by manufacturers. This will increase the economy of

scale, decreasing both production and retail costs on a per-vehicle level. Federal

feebates for ZEV purchase are a proved, effective way to increase adoption and use of


the vehicles.14 Funding for this program will come from an incremental increase in the

federal gas tax, which has not increased since 1993.15 Previously set at 18.4 cents a

gallon, our proposed regulation will increase this number to reflect the same amount in

present day value, about 31 cents per gallon.16 Every year, this amount will change to

reflect changes in the economy and keep it at a level equal or above the value held by

18.4 cents in 1993. Exact numbers for incentive amounts and budgeting will be adjusted

based on periodic studies forecasting on future market demand, which will be carried

out by the U.S. Department of Energy throughout the 30-year time frame. Since the gas

tax is a highly political issue and because the current market already shows a slow but

imminent shift away from gas-fueled vehicles, other forms of funding will need to exist.

Within the next 30 years, a regressive vehicle per mile traveled (VMT) tax will need to

be implemented nationwide to provide funding for the program and to offer insulation

from the gas tax’s loss of relevance. To reduce political resistance to the VMT tax, it will

be delayed until 10 years after the increase of the gas tax.

Policy must also provide measures for implementing fast-charging and refueling

stations across the country. Since number and location of stations will vary according to

locale, the task of site designation will be delegated to states or cities, which will be

mandated to cover the cost of their implementation. It is important to note that this is

already happening in many states, most recently through a deal signed with utility

provider PG&E in Northern and Central California.17 Federal regulation will ensure

expansion of this charging and refueling infrastructure, which is key to reaching high

rates of ZEV adoption. Public charging units (fast-charging) currently cost about $2,300

to install, but with mass production and installation, this number will decrease


dramatically.18 A mixture of federal, state, and local programs similar to but more

progressive than the federal EV Charging Infrastructure Tax Credit Program,

Connecticut Electric Vehicle Charger Program, and the city of Anaheim EV Charger

Rebate Program will help subsidize this cost for cities, businesses, and individuals who

choose to push this platform forward.19,20,21

For cities, existing gas stations offer the perfect geography for fast-charging

stations for EVs and hydrogen refueling sites. In the coming years, gas stations will

undergo a redefinition: they will be understood to be refueling stations for a variety of

fueling types as both individuals and freight companies switch more extensively to

alternative fuel vehicles. In addition, the small size of electric charging stations, relative

to conventional gas refueling stations, allows for easy integration into commonly visited

locations, such as grocery store and mall parking lots. This attribute is being taken

advantage of by companies such as Tesla and ChargePoint, which have installed

stations across the country and received extensive use and continued demand.

Solution Part 3: Heavy-Duty Vehicles

In contrast to the incremental approach we propose regarding personal vehicles,

we advocate the immediate conversion of heavy-duty vehicles from liquid fuels to the

lower-emitting natural gas. Heavy-duty vehicles (especially the long-distance freight

industry) comprise a disproportionate share of the transportation sector’s greenhouse

gas emissions and are consequently an urgent priority in combating climate change.22

However, the switch to electricity is more challenging for the freight industry than for the

passenger fleet, because of increased driving range and payload requirments, so a

‘bridge fuel’ is necessary in the short term before accomplishing the ultimate transition


to heavy-duty electric vehicles (a worthy goal, but one which is not realistic within the

30-year time frame).

Although natural gas has potential to be a cleaner, greener fuel than longer

hydrocarbons,23 it fuels only 3% of U.S. vehicles,24 mainly because its energy density is

orders of magnitude lower than that of gasoline. To overcome this energy density

problem, natural gas can be compressed to hundreds of times atmospheric pressure

(compressed natural gas, CNG) or cooled to extremely low temperatures so that it

condenses to a liquid (liquefied natural gas, LNG). Even so, more space is necessary

for a CNG or LNG fuel tank than for a gasoline tank, so natural gas is only practical for

large, heavy-duty vehicles that can devote significant volume to fuel storage. Further,

storing natural gas at such extreme pressures or temperatures entails costly

engineering considerations, making natural gas vehicles more expensive to

manufacture and maintain than their liquid-fueled counterparts. An emerging

technology, adsorbed natural gas (ANG), offers a solution to this storage problem. By

adsorbing the gas onto a solid material, fuel can be stored at high densities at much

more moderate pressures and temperatures (Fig. 2-3).25 Many companies are already

devoted to the research and manufacture of ANG tanks, including Cenergy Solutions,

Adsorbed Natural Gas Products, Inc., Energtek, Inc., Luon Energy LLC, and many

more. BASF Corporation, the world’s largest chemical company, has partnered with

Ford Motor Company to manufacture prototype natural-gas vehicles with ANG tanks.26

Because the adsorbent can be a cheap material like activated carbon, an entire

ANG fuel system can be installed in an existing vehicle for less than $1,800.27 Beyond

the tank installation, a diesel- or gasoline-powered vehicle does not need to be


retrofitted to run on natural gas. (Like liquid fuels, natural gas can undergo combustion

with oxygen in an internal combustion engine.) Because natural gas is significantly

cheaper than gasoline or diesel on an equal-energy basis (Fig. 4), consumers will

ultimately recover the upfront conversion cost at the pump. To further encourage the

conversion of existing vehicles, the cost of installing an ANG tank in recently purchased

vehicles will be offset by tax credits equaling one-half the tank cost.

Manufacturers will be required by law to make all future heavy-duty vehicles run

on natural gas and come equipped with an ANG tank. This will engender initial

competition between existing ANG tank suppliers and in-house research at

manufacturing companies, leading to rapid optimization of the ANG technology and tank

design. However, strategic alliances are also likely to develop between adsorbent

suppliers and vehicle manufacturers, like the collaboration between BASF and Ford.

This initial optimization will slightly increase the cost of heavy-duty vehicles, which will

be passed on to consumers. Therefore the federal government will also extend tax

credits to consumers for the purchase of new ANG-fueled heavy-duty vehicles,

sufficient to bring them in line with the cost of a liquid-fueled counterpart. This credit will

be phased out after the first five years, when supply chains for adsorbent materials and

ANG tanks have been established and optimized.

Consequently, much of the cost of the vehicle conversions described above will

ultimately be borne by the federal government. This expenditure is in line with current

policy goals; at COP 21, President Obama pledged to double the U.S. budget for clean

energy technology research and development from $6.4 billion in 2016 to $12.8 billion in

2021. More specifically, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will devote nearly $1


billion of its FY 2017 budget to “cutting-edge sustainable transportation technologies to

increase the affordability and convenience of advanced vehicles and domestic

renewable fuels.”28 The urgency of our vision for alternative transportation fuels is

reflected in the current political climate, making possible a coordinated and decisive

switch to adsorbed natural gas.

America’s natural gas pipelines overlay closely with the heavy-duty vehicular

traffic we propose to convert to ANG (Fig. 5), but there are fewer than 1,000 designated

natural gas fueling stations in the U.S.29 Rather than construct additional designated

natural-gas fueling stations, a more viable solution is to add natural gas fueling

equipment to existing gasoline/diesel stations. We propose that natural gas fueling

equipment should be installed in another 1,000 existing gas stations, doubling the

current U.S. natural gas fueling capability. The locations of these stations will be chosen

to meet the demands of the heaviest freight traffic and to fill gaps in the existing natural

gas fueling infrastructure.

While the construction of a new CNG fueling station costs around $2 million at

the minimum,30 the installation of CNG fueling equipment at an existing fuel station can

be as low as $280,000.31 But central to our proposal is the use of adsorbed natural gas,

not compressed natural gas. Adsorbed natural gas equipment is cheaper to install and

operate in a fuel station than CNG equipment for many of the same reasons ANG is

more practical than CNG to use in a tank. As described above, ANG requires much

lower pressures than CNG (Fig. 2-3). Therefore natural gas from a pipeline does not

need to be extensively pressurized before refueling an ANG tank. This eliminates the

necessity for multi-stage compressors, high-pressure-resistant pipes and tubing, steel


high-pressure cylinders, etc., at natural gas fueling stations.32 Thus, it has been

estimated that ANG fueling equipment would cost one-half that of a CNG station to

install in a fueling station, and the operating costs of an ANG would be one-fourth those

of a CNG station.13 Based on the case studies cited above, we estimate the cost of

installing ANG fueling equipment to be $150,000.

To incentivize the first 1,000 ANG installations in predetermined locations, the

federal government will loan the full $150,000 per installation to the natural gas

suppliers at below-market interest rates, taking this $150 million out of the DOE’s

aforementioned clean-energy infrastructure budget.10 In each chosen location, existing

gas stations will compete for the opportunity to have the local natural gas company

install this equipment, based on the gas station’s willingness to finance additional ANG

pumps within their station or its readiness for the installation (sufficient space, etc). The

strategic alliance between the natural gas supplier and the gas station owners is

important; natural gas suppliers have the sufficient capital to undertake these expensive

ANG installations, but they will also reap most of the profit of the resulting ANG sales

(individual gas stations have a notoriously slim profit margin on fuel).

The initial installations of ANG fueling equipment will happen during the first two

years of our proposal. At the end of this time, the the manufacturing regulations

requiring ANG tanks in all new heavy-duty vehicles will take effect. As the demand for

ANG increases and the demand for diesel decreases due to these transitions, market

forces will drive other fuel stations to install ANG fueling equipment. However, the

infrastructural jump-start provided by the first 1,000 ANG installations will make possible

a smooth transition for the consumers and heavy-duty fleets as they switch to ANG.


An important problem to address in the conversion of heavy-duty vehicles to

ANG is the role played by CH4 itself in global warming. As a stronger absorber of

infrared radiation than CO2, each molecule of CH4 leaked to the atmosphere has 21

times the global-warming potential (GWP) of a molecule of CO2 over a century, and over

100 times the GWP in the shorter term (10-20 years).33,34 Therefore, the environmental

benefit of CH4-based fuels (i.e., natural gas) is strongly dependent on leakage rates

throughout the production and distribution process. A crucial component of the

legislation accompanying our switch to ANG will be increased monitoring of leakage

rates throughout the supply chain (which recent research suggests has been

dramatically underestimated) and regulation of the overall leakage rate. Determination

of the break-even CH4 leakage rate for ANG use in heavy-duty vehicles is outside the

scope of this work, but it is reported by industry to be below 3%; new research by a

team of Harvard researchers using aerial overflights of fracking wells however found

leakage rates closer to 9% in some locations.35,36

The proposed transition to natural gas is meant to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions, but increased use of natural gas will have the opposite effect unless it is

accompanied by rapid development of better technology to prevent CH4 leakage and

third-party monitoring of leakage rates. Tighter regulations by government, such as

those recently adopted by Colorado, are necessary for existing lower-emissions

technology to be adopted by industry. According to Yale researchers, “Fixing the

problem would require a comprehensive approach that would involve not only detecting

methane leaks, but also instituting a host of engineering and mechanical fixes along the

entire chain of production and processing, from the wellhead to pipes.”37 Costs of


equipment updates, industry-wide leakage detection via aerial remote sensing

technology, and personnel to swiftly implement fixes must be shared between industry

and government to significantly and immediately reduce fugitive methane emissions and

realize climate benefits from the switch to natural gas.

The initial conversion to ANG will be logistically and economically challenging,

due to the number of stakeholders involved and the immediacy of the change. However,

the result will be an economic boon to consumers (see Fig. 4 above) as well as to U.S.

natural gas producers. Because natural gas is an affordable fuel that is abundant

domestically, this technological shift is economically sustainable. The U.S. is projected

to become a net exporter of natural gas by 2018; increased use of readily available

natural gas will bolster national security by reducing U.S. reliance on foreign sources of

energy.38 And assuming improved control of methane leakage rates, the transition from

diesel to natural gas will move us towards the climate goals established in Paris at COP

21, a crucial objective for the sustainability of our society.

30 Year Outlook

As heavy-duty vehicles switch to natural gas and car owners adopt electricity,

demand for liquid fuels will decrease and their prices will drop, benefiting consumers of

liquid fuels. National security and foreign policy will also benefit from a decreased

reliance on imported oil. Although the U.S. oil industry will suffer from the transition to

alternative fuels, the long-term economic effects of the continued combustion of liquid

fuels would be much more dire and less controlled than the short-term disruption

caused by this proposal. Historically, the U.S. economy has weathered many similar

technological shifts, especially as related to energy (the 19th-century transition from


whale blubber to oil is a textbook example). Historical trends also bode well for the

individual workers in the oil industry. Disruptive technological change benefits workers

in the disrupted industry by creating more productive (and therefore more lucrative) jobs

in the emerging industry.39

An immediate transition to ANG by heavy-duty vehicles and a gradual shift to

electricity and public transit by individual consumers will guarantee an economically

viable transportation sector for future generations and prevent a desperate, unplanned

fuel shift later on. Equally important, these transitions will bring much-needed reductions

in greenhouse gas emissions and yield a transportation sector that is sustainable far

beyond the challenge’s 30-year time frame, poised for further innovation and

improvement as better technology becomes available.


Figures


1 United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, World Population Prospects: 2012 Revision (June 2013) 2 "US Census Records." National Archives and Records Administration. National Archives and Records Administration, n.d. Web. 19 Jan. 2016. 3 UN Habitat. Cities in a Globalizing World: Global Report on Human Settlements 2012. N.p.: Routledge, 2012. Print. 4 Farsi, Mehdi, Aurelio Fetz, and Massimo Filippini. “Economies of Scale and Scope in Local Public Transportation”. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 41.3 (2007): 345–361.


5 Shapiro, Robert J. et al, Conserving Energy and Preserving the Environment: The Role of Public Transportation, July 2002 6 "Average Vehicle Occupancy by Mode and Purpose." National Household Travel Survey. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Jan. 2016. 7 United Nations. "Paris Agreement." FCCC /CP/2015/L.9 (2015): n. pag. Unfcc.int. United Nations. Web. 13 Apr. 2016. 8 Crothers, Brooke. "The Road Ahead: Toyota Sees Gas Engine Cars Gone By 2050 (Tesla's Already There)." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, n.d. Web. 19 Jan. 2016. 9 Exec. Order No. B-16-2012, 3 C.F.R. (2012). Print. 10 "2015 World Oil Outlook." (2015): n. pag. Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, Dec. 2015. Web. 13 Apr. 2016. 11 Matulka, Rebecca. "The History of the Electric Car." Energy.gov. Department of Energy, n.d. Web. 19 Jan. 2016. 12Nilsson, Maria. "Electric Vehicles: The Phenomena of Range Anxiety." Elvire (2011): n. pag. Lindholmen Science Park, 21 June 2011. Web. 13 Apr. 2016. 13 "Infographic: Electric Vehicles - Oil Savings in Action." Union of Concerned Scientists. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Jan. 2016. 14 Gallagher, Kelly S., and Erich Muehlegger. "Giving Green to Get Green: Incentives and Consumer Adoption of Hybrid Vehicle Technology." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 61.1 (2011): 1-15. Web. 13 Apr. 2016. 15 "Highway History." When Did the Federal Government Begin Collecting the Gas Tax? US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, n.d. Web. 19 Jan. 2016. 16 "Calculate the Value of $1 in 1993 - Inflation on 1 Dollars - DollarTimes.com." Calculate the Value of $1 in 1993 - Inflation on 1 Dollars - DollarTimes.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Jan. 2016. 17 Trabish, Herman. "CPUC Puts PG&E Electric Vehicle Charging Program on Hold." Latest News. Utility Dive, n.d. Web. 19 Jan. 2016. 18 Agenbroad, Josh, and Ben Holland. "Pulling Back the Veil on EV Charging Station Costs." Pulling Back the Veil on EV Charging Station Costs. Rocky Mountain Institute, n.d. Web. 19 Jan. 2016. 19 Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (2015). Print. 20 "DEEP: EVConnecticut - Incentives." DEEP: EVConnecticut - Incentives. Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, n.d. Web. 19 Jan. 2016. 21 "Plug-In Electric Vehicle Incentives | Anaheim, CA - Official Website." City of Anaheim, n.d. Web. 19 Jan. 2016. 22 Frey, H. C., and Kuo, P. Y. “Potential Best Practices for Reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions in Freight Transportation,” Proceedings, 100th Annual Meeting of the Air & Waste Management Association, 2007, Paper No. 2007-AWMA-443 23 “Full Fuel Cycle Assessment: Well-To-Wheels Energy Inputs, Emissions, and Water Impacts,” California Energy Commission Report, June 2007 24 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, March 2015 25 Mason, J. M., Veenstra, M. and Long, J. R. “Evaluating Metal-Organic Frameworks for Natural Gas Storage,” Chemical Science, 2014, 5, 32 26 Hall, J. “Innovation at BASF and Ford Is Breaking Down Barriers for Natural Gas Vehicles,” The Motley Fool, May 25, 2014 27 Quote provided by Luon Energy LLC 28 “Fact Sheet: The President’s Proposal to Advance Mission Innovation,” The White House Office of the Press Secretary, February 6, 2016 29 U.S. Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center 30 Johnson, C. “The Business Case for Natural Gas in Municipal Fleets,” U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Technical Report NREL/TP-7A2-479191, June 2010 31 Ginzburg, Y. “ANG Storage as a Technological Solution for the ‘Chicken-and-Egg’ Problem of NGV Refueling Infrastructure Development,” 23rd World Gas Conference, Amsterdam, 2006 32 “Adsorbed Natural Gas Developing Low-Pressure ANG Fuel Tank,” Green Fleet Magazine, February 4, 2016 33 “Global Warming Potentials,” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, from The Science of Climate Change: Summary for Policymakers and Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, 1995 34 McKibben, Bill. “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Chemistry.” The Nation, March 2016 35 Tong, F., Jaramillo, P., and Azevedo, I. “Comparison of Life Cycle Greenhouse Gases from Natural Gas Pathways for Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicles,” Environmental Science and Technology, 2015, 49, 7123 36 McKibben, Bill. “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Chemistry.” The Nation, March 2016 37 Drouin, R. “On Fracking Front, Push to Reduce Leaks of Methane.” Yale Environment 360. 07 April 2016 38 “Oil and Natural Gas Import Reliance of Major Economies Projected to Change Rapidly,” U.S. Energy Information Administration, January 22, 2014 39 Bessen, J. “How Technology Has Affected Wages for the Last 200 Years,” Harvard Business Review, April 29, 2015

Image courtesy of Highways England

The Smart E-Highway

Kate Buczek, Michael DeNoia, Eleanor Johnstone, Hoël Wiesner

DUKE UNIVERSITY

2

In 2012, the 111 million cars and 121 million trucks registered in the United States

traveled a total of 2.97 trillion vehicle miles on US roads.1 In the same year, the US

transportation sector consumed 196 billion gallons of petroleum. Powering personal and

commercial vehicles prompts complex impacts with pollution, congestion and safety. As

cities expand and affluence rises, traffic congestion is becoming problematic: human

errors create suboptimal spacing and wasteful acceleration/deceleration, increasing the

human and environmental risks. With accidents causing over 30,000 deaths annually,2

motor vehicle use is among the most dangerous and costly individual activities in the

United States.

To respond to these core challenges facing the transportation sector, we imagine a

system void of harmful emissions or high fatality rates. This strategy includes

transitioning from personal combustion-powered vehicles toward grid-powered

transportation, as well as relinquishing manual vehicle control to more sophisticated and

calculated driving methods. In this proposal, we reimagine a portion of California’s

highway as a pilot system of electric highways (e-highways) that can dynamically

charge autonomous, electric vehicles (EVs).

In a world bound by petroleum-fueled transportation infrastructure, this plan may seem

far-reaching. We have found, however, that the core component technology is available,

functional, and may be integrated into a single system. For this reason, we focus the

1 Transportation Energy Data Book, 2014. 2 FastStats, “Accidents or Unintentional Injusries,” http://goo.gl/O96y5W.

3

bulk of our proposal on phased integration of these technologies to create a viable

alternative to the current system of automotive travel.

SOCIETAL GOALS

Targeting key concerns around pollution, congestion and safety, the goals of our

proposed system are four-fold: 1) reduce GHG tailpipe emissions; 2) reduce inefficient

driving patterns; 3) eliminate collisions and accident costs; and 4) reduce travel time.

Reaching these goals entails the further cobenefits of improved air quality and greater

national security.

INFRASTRUCTURE

Three primary components can be leveraged to integrate a Smart E-Highway system

into existing highways: electric roads, wireless dynamic charging, and autonomous

vehicles (AVs).

1) Electric Roads

Catenary wire systems currently power many train and bus systems, such as the

Northeast and Keystone Amtrak train corridors and portions of Boston, MA’s MBTA

public transit system.3,4 This technology is now being adapted for the commercial

sector: in the Los Angeles, CA area, a catenary system is being tested to replace diesel

trucks along a main shipping artery.5 The greatest benefit lies in shifting emissions to

cleaner point source generation. Instead of drawing power from an internal combustion

3 Amtrak, “What is a Catenary Wire?” http://goo.gl/XpT2KH. 4 MBTA Capital Investment Program, “Revenue Vehicles,” https://goo.gl/eNtYPT. 5 Nate Berg, “Los Angeles is Building an e-Highway,” City Lab (2014), http://goo.gl/tXRl6n.

4

motor, catenary cables draw from grid-connected power plants, potentially using a

combination of renewable energy and carbon sequestration for fossil fuel combustion,

bringing cleaner power directly to the customer. Shifting emissions from tail-pipe to point

source also reduces the mobile NOx and PM pollution that cause dangerous air quality

problems in heavily congested cities. Furthermore, providing on-road power supply

reduces the need for additional fueling or charging stations.

Currently, combustion vehicles operate independently of a centralized power network.

Providing comparable independence in an electric system would require either a

catenary network on all roadways or a means of energy storage within the vehicle akin

to current hybrid or battery vehicles. We address this issue in the following section.

Hybrids and Battery EVs

Responding to consumer concerns, many modern automotive manufacturers have

begun incorporating batteries into vehicle designs for back-up or supplemental power.

EVs are powered entirely from electricity stored in the battery delivered from external

sources, regenerative breaking, or other means.6 However, range anxiety is a genuine

concern for EV owners: most current models offer less than 100 miles per charge.

Recharging is time consuming, taking between 40 minutes and several hours

depending on the charger type and battery capacity (Appendix 1).7 Simply increasing

the battery size is technologically complicated and presently cost prohibitive, so

increasing EV range currently requires strategic deployment of high-voltage chargers.

6 “How do Battery Electric Cars Work?” http://goo.gl/80QmtU. 7 “Levels of Charging,” http://goo.gl/hVz22c.

5

2) Wireless Charging

Installing the massive above-ground infrastructure of a catenary system is an

impractical way of electrifying roadways used by light duty vehicles. Wirelessly

transmitting electricity is an equally effective but less cumbersome alternative. Nikola

Tesla first demonstrated the ability to transmit power wirelessly in the 1890’s,8 although

this technology is only now being realized through wireless charging of cell phones and

electric vehicles. In this process, an electrified coil transmits energy through an

electromagnetic field to a receiving coil attached to a battery. Receiving coils are

inexpensive adapters that can be fitted to most existing EVs, regardless of battery type.

Several companies are already selling stationary wireless vehicle charging pads and

adapters that simplify recharging and reduce the risk of forgetting to charge a vehicle

while reducing charging efficiency by no more than 10%9.

Dynamic wireless charging (DWC) is the more advanced application of Tesla’s hundred

year old technology. Instead of idling over a single transmitting coil, the battery is

continually charged by passing over a series of optimaly spaced coils embedded in the

road. This allows the EV to instantenously replenish the energy used for propulsion and

avoid depleting stored battery power, alleviating range concerns. Wireless dynamic

charging systems are not yet commonly deployed. However, a United Kingdom study

recently identified an existing OLEV (On-Line Electric Vehicle) system developed by the

Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) as the most current,

8 Kelly Dickerson, “Wireless Electricity? How the Tesla Coil Works,” (2014), http://goo.gl/u3iXom 9 Qualcomm Halo. https://www.qualcomm.com/products/halo/features

6

advanced and deployable pilot technology.10 In 2013, a 15-mile OLEV bus route was

unveiled in Gumi, South Korea, using this system.11 Though slight transmission losses

reduce energy efficiency, the system instantaneously matches EV power demands.

Figure 1. OLEV-powered roadway schematic (Image courtesy of Utah State University)

A DWC system like OLEV powers sections of wireless coils with roadside inverters,

which in turn are powered by the grid (Figure 1). Though this requires building costly

transmission insfrastructure, it allows vehicle energy use to be met by local electricity

generators. If the generation mix is primarily comprised of affordable, low emission

power like renewable energy, natural gas, or nuclear plants, then electric transport

would be both cheaper and cleaner.

3) Autonomous vehicles (AVs)

An important technical challenge of DWC is that vehicles must be correctly aligned with

the coils while passing over them. Similarly, vehicles must pass over the coils at

10 “Feasibility study - powering electric vehicles on Eng land's major roads,” http://goo.gl/la8AmC. 11 Sebastian Anthony, “World’s first road-powered electric vehicle network switches on in South Korea,” (2013), http://goo.gl/LaJb4i.

7

consistent intervals to allow a full charge cycle to complete (OLEV: 0.9 s/cycle). This

leads us to our third technological component: vehicle automation. The National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) measures vehicle automation between

level 0 (complete driver control) and level 4 (complete safety-critical vehicle driving).12

Optimizing wireless energy transfer requires two level 3 autonomous features already in

use by a few high end cars. Real time lane stabilization ensures that vehicles maintain a

consistent position in a lane, thus guaranteeing correct alignment with roadway coils.

Adaptive cruise control automatically adjusts speed to maintain the optimal distance

from other vehicles.

Autonomous technology is often limited by the speed and quality through which it can

gather and process data. GPS and radio wave monitoring can be slow and innacurate.

With DWC, sensors are easily embedded alongside the coils and traffic flow data can

be quickly, accurately gathered and analyzed. This can yield a smart transportation

network enabling system-wide adjustements like automatically changing the speed limit

or traffic light intervals to ensure optimal speed and spacing for effective charging.

These tools can also provide external benefits like reducing congestion and power

consumption due to inefficient driver habits, improve maintenance assessments, and

create a safer, less accident-prone road system.

12 NHTSA, “U.S. Department of Transportation Releases Policy on Automated Vehicle Development,” (2013), http://goo.gl/kMF3Yw.

8

SUPPLY CHAIN & STAKEHOLDERS

Shifting towards an electric transport system will impact five distinct stakeholder groups:

vehicle owners/operators, vehicle and component manufacturers, fuel providers,

roadway construction/maintenance crews and first responders.

Vehicle & Components Manufacturers

EV compatiblity with DWC systems requires attaching a wireless power receiver to the

battery that pairs with the E-Highway’s power emitting coil. Although third parties can

perform this fairly simple installation, mandating factory installation would improve

reliability and facilitate adoption of an industry standard.

Standardizing AV systems requires a slightly different approach. While they are

beginning to appear in high-end cars, AV systems remain expensive and complex; an

inter-industry partnership between car and information technology companies will be

critical to successfully realizing AV’s benefits in safety and efficiency. We recommend

appointing an inter-industry task force to identify the most suitable system for efficient

and economical adoption.

Roadway and Cost Components

Installing and maintaining OLEV’s double coil technology will require new materials and

specialized training. Given the electrical aspect of this design, specific safety

precautions will have to be adopted, particularly in climates with snow, sand or heavy

rain. The charging lane’s dependency on the power grid will further require specific

9

transmission connections, increasing overhead and maintenance costs. A majority of

US state highway disbursements are already directed towards capital outlay and

maintenance (62%),13 and revenue from the gas tax, tolls, and fees currently only cover

approximately 50% of the needed maintenance costs. To minimize concerns of

workforce reallocation and reduced funding, states should prepare a detailed pricing

scheme demonstrating means for protecting worker benefits. Standardizing the

equipment and components can also reduce delays and errors in the supply chain,

minimizing workforce disturbance during the transition.

Fuel providers and utilities

As new policies require car manufacturers to promote EVs in order to reach renewable

energy and GHG reduction targets, utilities are seeking repositories for the excess

energy generated by variable renewable resources. Our pilot state, California, is a prime

environment—with an aggressive electricity generation target of 50% by 203014 and an

energy storage procurement target of 1.3GW by 202015, it needs a fast and sustainable

strategy for achieving state goals (Figure 2). Following the state’s mandate that 70%

VMT be powered by electricity by 2050, E-highway infrastructure offers a reliable

demand for the utilities’ additional power. California leads the country in number of

charging stations per state (21.6% of national total).16 The existing West Coast Green

13 FHWA, “Highway Finance Data Collection,” https://goo.gl/7I0Xzf. 14 “California Renewable Energy Overview and Programs,” http://goo.gl/cqP4uK. 15 St. John, Jeff, “California Sets Energy Storage Target of 1.3GW by 2020,” GreenTechMedia (July 11, 2013), http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/california-sets-1.3gw-energy-storage-target-by-2020 16http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article2606146.html

10

Highways charger network runs up the California coast to British Columbia, providing a

robust foundation for expanding the region’s EV network.17

In 2045, our economic model calculates a 500kW generating capacity requirement to

power a 10 mile section of E-Highway, assuming constant charging of vehicles on the

roadway. In 2015, California unveiled a 550MW solar project near in the town of Desert

Center, enough power dynamic charging along 1000 miles of the busiest E-Highway.18

As the E-Highway system expands beyond the pilot to roadways with less traffic, less

electricity will be required to meet charging demands.

Figure 2. Change needed to meet California RPS mandate

The gradual transition to grid-powered vehicles is likely to contribute to the declining

demand for gasoline and diesel, while there may be a growing demand for natural gas

to fuel centralized power generators.19 This may facilitate progress toward state and

national emissions goals, reduce foreign oil dependence, and promote innovation in

17“WestCoastGreenHighway”,http://www.westcoastgreenhighway.com/18 Sammy Roth, “World’s largest solar plant opens in California desert,” USA Today (2015), http://goo.gl/mrb78K. 19 IBISWorld, “Pump & Compressor Manufacturing in the US,” (2015), http://goo.gl/TSLzuL.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Shar

e of

In-S

tate

Gen

erat

ion

Evolution of California Energy Mix

Coal Natural Gas Nuclear Hydroelectric Other Renewables

11

utility market growth. Creating a diversified energy economy that services a blend of

fuel types may include retrofit of petrol stations to offer electric charging, battery swaps

and liquid fuels, integrating these vendors into the mixed energy economy.”

Vehicle owners and operators

Safety and cost are foremost in a consumer’s mind, and our model provides long-term

benefits in both areas. While adding wireless charging equipment and AV software will

price vehicles above current ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles and even hybrid

and EVs, reductions in fueling costs, collision risk and travel time, as well as financial

incentives for early adopters, yield significant cost savings. Freight companies will also

see reductions in shipping costs and driver fatigue.

Reliability and convenience are also valuable decision factors; many consumers

currently have concerns around the reliability of EV charging infrastructure, and the

control of AV software. Currently, hybrid and battery-powered vehicles can get up to

300 miles per charge—this is comparable to most ICE vehicles and easily

accommodates the 90+% of Americans who drive less than 10 miles a day. The AV

system also adds ease and efficiency through its real-time data-based GPS system.

First Responders

Current police, patrol and EMT precautions account for the combustive properties of an

ICE vehicle. A damaged E-highway or EV may expose first responders and passengers

to electrical dangers and AV system malfunctions. Collaboration between designers,

12

manufacturers, and first responders will both mitigate the infrastructure’s inherent risks

and yield a robust emergency response directive.

ECONOMICS

Financing an E-Highway project involves three primary costs: construction, power

supply and maintenance. Construction is a fixed capital cost, while power supply and

maintenance are subject to electricity price and roadway usage. To evaluate costs over

30 years, we developed an Excel model for a 10 mile pilot E-Highway lane along

California’s Highway 5 (Appendix 2). We assume that EV adoption increases steadily to

help meet the state’s mandate of powering 70% VMT by electricity in 2050. While the

proposed pilot employs one additional lane of travel for E-Highway-enabled vehicles,

use of the lane is not restricted to EVs and can also provide benefits similar to those of

an HOV lane. Our price for roadway use incorporates the 30-year construction and

maintenance costs and total electricity cost, divided by total vehicles driving in the lane

(both EV and conventional) during our planning horizon. All HOV-lane users pay a toll of

about $0.25 per 10 mile trip, while an ICE vehicle driver also pays the petroleum cost for

that distance. We use toll prices as a way to recuperate roadway expenses over the 30-

year planning horizon.

One challenge of shifting away from a petroleum-based transport system is replacing

the gas tax, which partially funds road maintenance. A demand-based rate system

combining the concepts of smart-meter and a FastLane highway pass, incorporated into

the E-Highway pricing scheme, could easily remedy this problem. For a fee, vehicles

fueled by non-electric sources could pay for the time-savings advantage of driving in the

13

electric lane, which is expected to be less congested. A similarly proposed VMT tax in

California20 would raise highway improvement funds to support this project by taxing

total miles driven each year, while serving as a valuable policy implementation tool

supporting a demand-based rate system and future nationwide CO2 tax measures.

VMT taxes also have the advantage of reducing overall congestion as carpooling

becomes a desirable mode of transit to reduce personal driving expenses.

Figure 2. Drivers incur the cost of using the non-electrified

roadway, consuming gas, and emitting CO2 Cost recovery measures may be further mitigated by the cost savings achieved through

the safety cobenefits of the AV and E-Highway system. The AV features proposed are

expected to dramatically reduce the number of collisions, currently quantified at $240

billion annually, through large reductions in human error21. This entails significant

savings to society by way of health care, vehicle insurance premiums, and auto repairs.

20 Keith Laing, “California to test taxing drivers by the mile,” The Hill (2016), http://goo.gl/DGZH4v. 21 CDC, “State-Specific Costs of Motor Vehicle Crash Deaths,” http://goo.gl/TKi3Le.

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

$4,500,000

No Tax $20/ton $70/ton $110/ton

30 y

ear N

PV

CO2 tax level

NPV of new highway lane vs. E-Highway cost - 30-year projection

Toll Gas CO2 E-Highway Cost

14

MARKETING

One of the greatest challenges to our model is gaining stakeholder buy-in. Marketing

strategies will target end-use consumers and focus on cost-savings through improved

accessibility, mobility, and safety measures, as well as cobenefits of an electric fuel

economy.

Research shows that fuel cost savings are a leading incentive for consumers to

purchase EVs instead of ICE vehicles, with trending improvements in battery material

technology and storage capacity expected to drive further adoption of EVs. The current

California EV market comprises 3% the total light duty automobile sales,22 with national

average sales between 0.2% and 0.4%.23 These rates are expected to triple by 2018.24

As the nationwide federal tax benefit and other incentives expire, new policies will need

to be paired with manufacturer-led efforts to encourage further EV adoption. One

example is expanding the Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate: putting more low emission

vehicles on the road by 2025 will raise awareness of electricity as an alternative fuel.

Consumer perceptions about risks of fire hazard and performance during inclement

weather, as well as collision safety measures, reliability during power outages, electric

shock, and electromagnetic radiation impacts on human health will need to be

addressed through education, advertising campaigns and pilot projects25. Since these

technologies have not yet seen widespread adoption, a marketing campaign should

22 Navigant, “Electric Vehicle Geographic Forecasts,” https://goo.gl/8xOOFa. 23 NADA, “Market Beat,” (2016), https://goo.gl/OQLBLT. 24 Bird, C. (2014). Hybrid and Electric Cars - US - January 2014. 25 “Suvery: Consumers express concerns about electric, plug-in hybrid cars,” ConsumerReports (2012), http://goo.gl/KMK6Nf.

15

emphasize the AV software’s ability to detect and respond to inclement weather and

collision risk, and directly address the potential for AV software malfunction.

Local government bodies are both customers and marketing partners, and our model

offers system-wide benefits that can improve a city’s livability score. Reduced emissions

will lower the smog levels in major metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles, New York

City, New Delhi, and Beijing, improving visibility and human and plant health. Wide-

spread adoption of E-highways will also lead to significant reductions in foreign oil

dependence, minimizing city budget volatility and strengthening U.S. national security.

As we consider rollout to the remainder of the US, initial expansion strategies will target

major roadways in Portland, Seattle, New York, and Atlanta, four high-profile leaders in

the EV movement featuring high model availability, established networks of public and

DC charging systems, statewide incentives, low emission power grids, and high EV

adoption rates.26

RECOMMENDATIONS and CONCLUSIONS

Considering the resource-intensive impacts of a growing global population, we identify a

need to create a safer, more efficient driving experience. Our strategy aims to alleviate

health concerns through reduction of non-point CO2, NOx and particulate matter

emissions, as well as a dramatic reduction in traffic fatalities. We further seek to reduce

or repurpose the roughly 100 million hours a day Americans spend driving27. A major

26 Nic Lutsey et. al., “Assessment of Leading Electric Vehicle Promotion Activities in United States Cities,” (2015), http://goo.gl/gqjW07. 27 https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/subject_areas/national_household_travel_survey/daily_travel.html

16

step in achieving these goals, the E-Highway leverage advances in battery storage and

car electronics with emerging techniques for wirelessly charging moving vehicles and

cutting edge vehicle automation to create a cleaner, safer roadway for American

drivers. Shifting away from a gas tax to an amount-of-travel tax and travel-lane

incentives for E-Highway users realizes cost savings within 20 years and cuts future

emissions in half. These potential benefits can improve further if the electric grid

powering the roadway aggressively switches to renewable energy generation. The initial

pilot program on California Highway 5 will identify and overcome key issue areas,

encourage adoption and build the supply chain for more economical deployment across

the state’s highway system. Eventually, smart electric highways will criss-cross the land,

offering American drivers a fast, clean, safe way to travel.

17

APPENDIX 1: Charging and battery statistics

Charger Type

Level 1 (AC) -

Traditional home

charger

Level 2 (AC) Level 3 (DC) - Fast

charger

Cost of Installation and

Construction (per charger) 1200 $2,300 to $6,000 $50,000 to $100,000

Charging Time Needed 1 hour 1 hour 20 minutes

Range Gain 2-5 miles 10-20 miles 50-70 miles

Table 1. Traditional Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment Costs28

Vehicle Type Most Effective

Battery Type Restrictions Benefits

Light Duty BEV Lithium ion Weight limits battery

capacity

New models can easily incorporate

adaptors in design

Medium Van BEV Nickel Metal Hydride

Range and speed

limitations; cold weather

compatibility issues

Smaller battery required with

dynamic charging

Heavy Duty Truck /

Bus PHEV

Lithium ion

phosphate

(supercapacitor and

battery technology)

Only feasible in hybrid

technology

Higher total vehicle weight creates

less impact from adaptor weight;

battery can be 1/5 of traditional

capacity when dynamic charging is

efficient

Table 2. Battery-type compatibility for E-Highway enabled vehicles

28 Josh Agenbroad et. al, “Pulling Back the Veil on EV Charging Station Costs,” RMI Outlet (2014), http://goo.gl/Yhua2I.

18

APPENDIX 2: Modeling equations

Calculations used in our cost model for a 10-mile highway vs. e-Highway comparison.

Total costs:

TCE-Highway = e_hwy ⋅ (k0 +Mt

(1+ i)t)+

t=1

29

∑ 1(1+ i)t

(EVt ⋅e_use ⋅t=0

29

∑ P_elec+ ICEt ⋅1

mpgt⋅P_gas)

TCHighway = k0 +Mt

(1+ i)t+

t=1

29

∑ carst(1+ i)t ⋅mpgt

(t=0

29

∑ P_gas+CO2_gas ⋅CO2_tax)

Fleet growth, fuel efficiency improvement, and growth in EV share:

carst = EVt + ICEt

carst = cars0 ⋅ (1+ pop_growth)t

EVt = carst ⋅EV_target

(1+ e−( t3−ln(EV_target/EV0−1) )

mpgt =mpg29 −mpg0

29⋅ t +mpg0

Variable Description Model Value Unit

t Year after starting point of 2015 0 to 29 (year)

kt Capital cost required for building highway lane

in California $800,000 ($/mi)

Mt Cost of maintaining California highway each

year $15,000 ($/mi)

e_hwy Price multiplier for e-Highway cost compared to

baseline 1.5 (%)

i Interest rate 0.03 (%)

carst Total number of vehicles driving on the road

each year

function

t0 = 10.9M (# of vehicles)

pop_growth Average 10-year growth of LA population, used 0.0075 (%)

19

to estimate car increase

ICEt Number of conventional gasoline-powered cars

driving on the road each year function (# of vehicles)

EVt Number of EVs driving on the road each year function (# of vehicles)

EV_target Calfornia target for EV share of VMT in 2050 0.7 (%)

e_use Electricity demand for an EV driving on a mile of

e-Highway 0.4885 (kWh/mi)

P_elec 2014 average price of electricity of industrial

constumers 0.14 ($/kWh)

mpgt Fleet fuel efficiency improvement acccording to

federal CAFÉ standards

function

t0 = 25

t29 = 60

(mi/gallon)

P_gas 2014 average price of gasoline 3.5 ($/gallon)

CO2_gas CO2 content in one gallon of gas 0.00982 (short ton)

CO2_tax Hypothetical tax on tailpipe CO2 emissions variable ($/short ton)

Table 3. Variables and values used in the model

20

APPENDIX 3: Modeling results

Highway ($/year)

eHighway ($/year)

Trips (cars/year)

EV Growth (% of vehicles)

EVs (trips/year)

ICE Cars (trips/year)

Fleet MPG

2015 0 800,000.00$ 1,200,000.00$ 1,216,667 0.20% 2,433 1,214,233 25.00 2016 1 15,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 1,225,792 0.28% 3,418 1,222,374 26.21 2017 2 15,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 1,234,985 0.39% 4,798 1,230,187 27.41 2018 3 15,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 1,244,247 0.54% 6,731 1,237,516 28.62 2019 4 15,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 1,253,579 0.75% 9,436 1,244,143 29.83 2020 5 15,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 1,262,981 1.05% 13,212 1,249,770 31.03 2021 6 15,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 1,272,454 1.45% 18,467 1,253,986 32.24 2022 7 15,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 1,281,997 2.01% 25,755 1,256,242 33.45 2023 8 15,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 1,291,612 2.77% 35,807 1,255,804 34.66 2024 9 15,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 1,301,299 3.81% 49,571 1,251,728 35.86 2025 10 15,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 1,311,059 5.20% 68,232 1,242,826 37.07 2026 11 15,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 1,320,892 7.06% 93,199 1,227,693 38.28 2027 12 15,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 1,330,798 9.47% 126,020 1,204,779 39.48 2028 13 15,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 1,340,779 12.54% 168,193 1,172,587 40.69 2029 14 15,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 1,350,835 16.35% 220,836 1,129,999 41.90 2030 15 15,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 1,360,966 20.89% 284,250 1,076,716 43.10 2031 16 15,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 1,371,174 26.07% 357,482 1,013,692 44.31 2032 17 15,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 1,381,458 31.71% 438,096 943,361 45.52 2033 18 15,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 1,391,818 37.53% 522,375 869,444 46.72 2034 19 15,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 1,402,257 43.21% 605,966 796,291 47.93 2035 20 15,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 1,412,774 48.47% 684,792 727,982 49.14 2036 21 15,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 1,423,370 53.10% 755,821 667,549 50.34 2037 22 15,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 1,434,045 57.00% 817,430 616,615 51.55 2038 23 15,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 1,444,800 60.17% 869,319 575,481 52.76 2039 24 15,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 1,455,636 62.66% 912,154 543,483 53.97 2040 25 15,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 1,466,554 64.58% 947,134 519,420 55.17 2041 26 15,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 1,477,553 66.03% 975,642 501,911 56.38 2042 27 15,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 1,488,635 67.11% 999,017 489,618 57.59 2043 28 15,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 1,499,799 67.90% 1,018,430 481,370 58.79 2044 29 15,000.00$ 22,500.00$ 1,511,048 68.49% 1,034,850 476,198 60.00

Roads VehiclesYear

Fleet

MPG

Gasoline

(gallons/trip)

Gasoline

(gallons/year)

Electricity

(kWh/trip)

Electricity

(kWh/year)

ICE (s.tons

CO2/year)CO2/kWh

EV (s.tons

CO2/year)

eHighway

CO2

Baseline no

Evs

25.00 0.040 48,569.33 0.48825 1,188.08 477.0 - - 477.0 477.9

26.21 0.038 46,643.22 0.48825 1,668.64 458.0 0.7 0.6 458.6 459.3

27.41 0.036 44,874.76 0.48825 2,342.55 440.7 0.7 0.8 441.5 442.4

28.62 0.035 43,238.51 0.48825 3,286.60 424.6 0.7 1.1 425.7 426.9

29.83 0.034 41,711.16 0.48825 4,607.13 409.6 0.7 1.5 411.1 412.7

31.03 0.032 40,270.35 0.48825 6,450.55 395.5 0.6 2.1 397.5 399.6

32.24 0.031 38,893.69 0.48825 9,016.68 381.9 0.6 2.8 384.7 387.6

33.45 0.030 37,557.74 0.48825 12,575.03 368.8 0.6 3.8 372.6 376.4

34.66 0.029 36,237.14 0.48825 17,482.99 355.8 0.6 5.2 361.0 366.0

35.86 0.028 34,903.94 0.48825 24,203.26 342.8 0.6 7.0 349.7 356.3

37.07 0.027 33,527.41 0.48825 33,314.47 329.2 0.6 9.3 338.6 347.3

38.28 0.026 32,074.86 0.48825 45,504.37 315.0 0.5 12.4 327.4 338.9

39.48 0.025 30,514.04 0.48825 61,529.21 299.6 0.5 16.3 315.9 331.0

40.69 0.025 28,817.81 0.48825 82,120.07 283.0 0.5 21.1 304.1 323.6

41.90 0.024 26,971.18 0.48825 107,823.12 264.9 0.5 26.8 291.7 316.6

43.10 0.023 24,979.82 0.48825 138,785.11 245.3 0.5 33.5 278.8 310.1

44.31 0.023 22,877.10 0.48825 174,540.35 224.7 0.5 40.7 265.4 303.9

45.52 0.022 20,725.36 0.48825 213,900.60 203.5 0.5 48.2 251.8 298.0

46.72 0.021 18,608.02 0.48825 255,049.44 182.7 0.4 55.5 238.3 292.5

47.93 0.021 16,613.27 0.48825 295,862.84 163.1 0.4 62.1 225.3 287.3

49.14 0.020 14,815.07 0.48825 334,349.70 145.5 0.4 67.6 213.1 282.3

50.34 0.020 13,259.53 0.48825 369,029.70 130.2 0.4 71.8 202.0 277.6

51.55 0.019 11,961.10 0.48825 399,110.16 117.5 0.4 74.5 192.0 273.2

52.76 0.019 10,907.81 0.48825 424,445.16 107.1 0.4 75.9 183.0 268.9

53.97 0.019 10,070.92 0.48825 445,359.09 98.9 0.3 76.2 175.1 264.9

55.17 0.018 9,414.49 0.48825 462,437.97 92.5 0.3 75.5 168.0 261.0

56.38 0.018 8,902.39 0.48825 476,357.25 87.4 0.3 74.1 161.5 257.4

57.59 0.017 8,502.35 0.48825 487,769.81 83.5 0.3 72.1 155.6 253.9

58.79 0.017 8,187.52 0.48825 497,248.31 80.4 0.3 69.6 150.0 250.5

60.00 0.017 7,936.63 0.48825 505,265.48 77.9 0.3 66.8 144.7 247.3

Vehicles Fuel Use Emissions

Fuel Institute: Future of Transportation Case Competition

Final Submission- Eidolon: Your Autonomous Chauffeur

Introduction

As children, many of us envisioned the future of transportation with jet packs, hover boards, and driverless cars. Although we may not see this technology around us, many of these concepts are more realistic than we may realize. Our group has constructed a practical concept of what we believe the future of transportation will consist of within the next 30 years. There are three key transportation concepts that we believe will continue to grow and become widely implemented within our time range: ridesharing, electric-powered vehicles, and autonomous technology. We have combined these concepts to create an ideal system of transportation for the future, which we call “Eidolon”.

Background

The word eidolon is synonymous for ghost, and is also defined as an idealized person or thing. Essentially Eidolon will be a ridesharing corporation that only operates with vehicles that are autonomous as well as electric-powered. We chose Eidolon as a fitting name to mock the concept of riding in a vehicle that operates without a driver, almost as if a ghost is in the driver seat. The alternate definition of eidolon is also expected to show relevance, as the company displays its dominance as the primary transportation mode. A more detailed description of Eidolon’s operation methods can be viewed below.

Operation

Similar to existing ridesharing systems, Eidolon will communicate with costumers through the Eidolon Mobile Application. Customers will pay for their trips with credit cards that are linked to their Eidolon account. Eidolon will extract the customer’s location using an advanced GPS system, and customers can monitor their trip’s progress using a real-time map display on the mobile application. If you are familiar with the current ridesharing process, the methodology to call a trip is very similar – aside from the fact that there are no physical drivers with Eidolon, and the vehicles are not gas-powered.

As all Eidolons, these vehicles are electric-powered with an option of solar-power capability, and a requirement of autonomous technology. The customers do not drive, and are autonomously chauffeured to their destinations after inputting the destination and other in-process preferences. There are no steering wheels in the vehicles, and instead, the driver seat has a touch screen monitor present to manually input locations, and control other in-vehicle systems like temperature control, audio, and entertainment.

To ensure the most efficient service for our customers, we plan to establish Eidolon-owned Traffic Management Centers (TMCs). This will also create new jobs for communities and individuals who are previously employed as drivers. Employment at our TMCs will consist of observation and analysis of our

vehicles in motion from surveillance cameras on the dashboard of Eidolon vehicles, and CCTV cameras on roadways. This task of monitoring vehicles intends to provide optimal routes for our vehicle systems, and also to improve the safety of our passengers.

Eidolon Corporation will own a fleet of autonomous EVs, but owners of autonomous EVs will also be able to loan their vehicles to Eidolon Corporation for reimbursement. This is similar to how current ridesharing owners can drive their own vehicle or use a vehicle owned by the ridesharing company. However, since the fleet is autonomous, drivers can earn income while being at work, home, or even sleeping – essentially their vehicle has to do all of the work. Eidolon will still thoroughly inspect vehicles that are loaned to our corporation, just as if they are our own. We may call these individuals “Eido-loaners”.

Customers will have three types of ride options: Direct Rides, Shared Rides, and Express Drop-Off:

• Direct Rides: Customers will be retrieved from their pick-up location, and delivered directly to their destination without additional stops. This is the most expensive method. This method is most beneficial for rural areas that lack multimodal transit systems. Direct rides can still be split with friends, as long as the destination is identical. For different destinations, a Shared Ride must be used.

• Shared Ride: Customers will be retrieved from their pick-up location along with other riders within their proximity, and customers will be dropped off according to the distance of their destination. The drop-off order will be determined using an algorithm similar to the “Traveling Salesman Problem”. There will be no more than 4-5 customers sharing one Eidolon. This method is not as expensive as a Direct Ride, and is most beneficial to suburban areas. This is an ideal option for friends going to different destinations, or simply an individual who prefers a cheaper ride and doesn’t mind sharing with a neighbor or other customers in the general area.

• Express Drop-Off: Similar to a Shared Ride, customers will be retrieved from their pick-up location, along with a variety of other customers within similar proximity. However, customers will not be taken to their final destination, but to a local hub of mass transit, such as a Mag Lev/Rapid Transit Station. This is the least expensive option, and is most beneficial for urban areas.

Aside from the three trip options, customers will also have 3 vehicle size options that best fit their trip:

• Vehicle Size A: More compact, typically two-door or four-door vehicle. Size A is mostly used in theDirect Rides option above.

• Vehicle Size B: Larger, four-door, SUV vehicle to accommodate more customers. Size B is used inthe Shared Rides.

• Vehicle Size C: Largest vehicle option- a van that seats 10-12 passengers. This option is mostly usedin the express Drop-Off option, but occasionally the Shared Ride option.

Demand

According to the former Shell Oil President John Hofmeister, due to the shutdown of drilling rigs, and the over-consumption of surplus oil, gas prices can be expected to increase to “$5 a gallon in the U.S. as we approach the end of the decade” (CNBC). Also, according to AAA Public Relations Manager, Erin Stepp, “This year, changes in maintenance, fuel and insurance costs resulted in the increase to just over 60 cents a mile” (AAA NewsRoom). These are two of many statements that support our beliefs that fuel costs will greatly increase within 30 years, along with the costs of vehicle ownership. Also a result, systems such as ridesharing will continue to flourish, along with the investment in electric vehicles.

Essentially, Eidolon will be the ideal transportation system in a future where vehicle ownership costs and fuel costs have increased dramatically. Due to these changes, only a small percentage of individuals will own vehicles. Eidolon’s precedent investment in electric vehicles will be advantageous, along with the implementation of autonomous technology, which is expected to improve the safety and efficiency of traveling. According to a Business Insider Intelligence report, “94% of U.S. collisions are caused by human error”; Eidolon intends to greatly decrease this number, and prevent thousands of deaths annually. Such a system will also be extremely beneficial to the elderly, impaired, and inexperienced drivers. Ultimately, Eidolon will flourish in the given conditions of our U.S. Market, and it will stand as a primary mode of transportation for the future.

Objectives

• Who: Eidolon intends to benefit all individuals who prefer a more luxurious, time-efficient, safer andcost-efficient option to travel - especially individuals with disabilities, impairment, or eveninexperience in driving.

• What: Utilizing autonomous technology we will greatly reduce the rate of accidents. Our electric-powered fleet will show great benefit to environmental improvements and reducing emission release.As a ridesharing corporation our service will be accessible by all individuals, while combatting the useof personal vehicles and refining our standards of roadway capacity.

• Where: Eidolon Corporation intends to have offices all across the U.S., and eventually expanding toother countries. We will most likely begin in locations such as California, D.C., Nevada, Michigan,and Florida – al states where legislation has already been passed regarding autonomous vehicles.

• Why: Eidolon is a practical service that will allow of society to adjust to a variety of transportation-related problems that we are expected to face within the next 30 years. These problems includeskyrocketing costs of vehicle ownership and gas prices, overcapacity of corridors, environmentalstrain for fuels, continuously increasing accidents based on human error, and a variety of otherconcerns.

• When: Given a variety of statistics and forecasts that we have concluded in the next sections, Eidoloncan very well exist within the 30 year time frame. According to Jamais Cascio, a futurist andrepresentative of the Institute for Ethic and Emerging Technologies, “[ridesharing] networks such as

Uber will pretty much kill the need to own a car in 25 to 30 years”. Other forecasters like Lux Research also mentioned that “in just 15 years, by 2030, the self-driving car market is expected to reach a whopping $87 billion”.

• How: We will describe just how Eidolon will reach our expected feats through our further research and analysis below…

Electric Vehicles (EV) Market Analysis

The success of Eidolon is dependent on the growth of three major markets: autonomous technology, ride-sharing, and electric vehicles, or EVs. The prosperity of EVs is probably the most ambiguous of the three markets discussed. This is because of a variety of factors, especially considering that the EV market consists of less than 1% of total light-duty vehicle sales. How can such a dramatic change occur where EVs will be a dominant market? Some of the key hindrances of consumer interests in EVs include cost, convenience, and consumption.

How to Combat Cost

In order to combat the issue of costs and the lack of willingness-to-pay for EVs, Eidolon may need to invest in stakeholders outside of the United States first. Although EVs account for less than 1% of our market here in the U.S., the EV market is rapidly developing in nations such as China and Norway. According to the New York Times, there are “generous subsidies and incentives that the Norwegian government offers to encourage the adoption of e-cars”. These incentives help drivers to be able to afford EVs, and as a result, EVs account for over 20% of new vehicle sales in Norway. Some of the incentives include tax exemptions and exclusion of having to pay tolls on certain roads. Yes, the U.S. and Norway have two very different population scales, but their incentive system is a reflection of how EV sales can be improved in almost any market. Although the U.S. does have incentives as well, our value of tax breaks are not nearly in the ranks of countries such as Norway, Denmark, and China.

Accord to MIT Technology Review “researchers at the Stockholm Environment Institute found that the cost of Li-battery packs used by leading manufacturers like Tesla and Nissan is falling by roughly 8 % per year”. As a result, the battery cost will eventually reach a verge that will most likely allow EVs to be manufactured and sold for much cheaper than they currently are. We have already noticed a variety of EV manufacturers promoting less expensive EV models such as the 2015 BMW i3 for $42,400, the 2015 Ford Focus Electric for $29,170, the 2015 Nissan Leaf for $29,010, and Volkswagen e-Golf for $27,945. We would agree that these models can be classified as more “affordable” EVs, unlike Tesla’s Model S, which was proclaimed to be more affordable, but still managed to hike up to around $70,000. However, there is a 2017 Tesla Model 3 sedan on the way, with an expected starting price of $35,000. This would be a feat to see, especially considering that Tesla seems to be one of the most popular EV manufacturers to achieve integrating not only quality, but appeal and attraction. There are also other younger companies arising and hoping to make an influence on the EV market, such as Faraday Future, who plans to make their grand entrance with a fully-electric automotive line, as well as other vehicle technology.

EVs also do not require certain maintenance as gasoline-powered vehicles. Oil changes, tune-ups, and in some occasions brake jobs are not concerns for EV maintenance. Maintenance and operation costs are among other misconceptions of EVs. Peter Forint, Professor and EV Evangelist, presented research for EV operations in Ontario. He described the cost of EV ownership as follows: “If you drive 20,000 km per year, that’s $300-$600 per year for the EV compared to $2000-$4000 per year for the gasoline vehicle.” Evidently the ownership of an EV saves much more money contrary to the belief of many consumers.

Ultimately, Eidolon will work alongside many of these EV automakers to provide reasonable prices along with outstanding quality. Likewise, we will work toward encouraging greater government subsidies for EV

ownership. Eidolon also intends to promote a greater widespread of charging stations and battery longevity, which leads to our next two issues outside of cost – convenience and consumption.

How to Combat Convenience

Another one of the common fears of EVs is the uncertainty of infrastructure such as charging stations. As EV sales continue to grow, the number of charging stations is also bound to grow, so finding a location to charge should not be an issue. There are also apps available to find EV charging stations such as PlugShare and EV Charge Hub. An app called EV Trip Planner helps drivers prepare for points where their vehicle may need to charge.

“Range Anxiety” is problem for many consumers who fear that they may run out of battery before reaching a charging station. The maximum range of 120 km for many EV models is actually “more than enough” for 85% of commuters. With access to a charging station at work, the remaining percentage of drivers can double that amount. Other models premium EV models like the Tesla Model S can reach over 400 km if range is truly an issue for certain commuters. Even cities like London have taken on initiatives to improve the convenience of EVs. London has invested £5 million to develop hundreds of EV charging points on lamp posts in Hounslow.

According to the Alternative Fuels Data Center, there are over 11,000 electric stations, and approximately 30,000 EV charging outlets in the US. These percentages are continuously growing as you can see in the Figure 1 below. There are a variety of different levels of stations that charge EVs at different speeds and provide various spans of mileage. At the time, the fastest charger would be Tesla’s Supercharger which can provide up to 170 miles of charge within only 30 minutes. We can compare this to other charging levels such as SAE Combo - DC Fast Charging system, where vehicles can gain about 75-100 miles of charge. There are even home charging stations that can be implemented starting around $800. Working alongside corporations such as Tesla would be extremely beneficial to Eidolon in order to implement more of a widespread of Supercharger stations, to provide drivers with a longer driving range in a shorter time.

Figure 1

How to Combat Consumption

Although EVs are expected to have environmental advantages over gasoline-powered vehicles, other issue remains such as the emissions from power plants. According to the Alternative Fuel Data Center “Hybrid and plug-in electric vehicles can have significant emissions benefits over conventional vehicles.” However this benefit is contradicted if power plants are still releasing nearly just as much emissions to power the EVs. This is especially a problem for states such as California, where a large portion of U.S. EVs are manufactured and purchased. As the sales of EVs continue to grow, the demand for electricity will also continue to increase, thus

influencing the levels of coal burned to produce this energy. According to Digital Trends, we were surprised to find “EVs that depend on coal for their electricity are actually 17 percent to 27 percent worse than diesel or gas engines. That is especially bad for the United States, because we derive close to 45 percent of our electricity from coal.” This statement explains exactly why this third category of “EV oppositionists” fear that EV consumption of electricity will lead to damaging our environment even more than conventional gas-powered vehicles.

Using an effective alternative source for electricity is one way that we can combat this challenge of EV consumption and emission release. As we mentioned previously, there are solar-powered charging stations in many areas accessible for EVs. A key goal would be to optimize the use of solar energy to charge EV batteries in efficient time, and enough energy for reasonable mileage. Electricity can also be generated through biomass, wind and hydro-activity, but these sources contribute to a very small percentage of electricity distributed. Nonetheless, further research and funding spent on these sources could help to remove pressure from burning coal for electricity.

CEO of Tesla, Elon Musk, has recently unveiled a battery to power homes “completely off the grid”. This battery will be able to store electricity from solar and wind generators. “The 7kWh unit will ship for $3,000, while the 10kWh unit will go for $3,500 (get the big one). They will store electricity from the grid or from solar and wind generators on site and if the grid goes down, they will continue to power your home indefinitely.” With such a leap in powering homes through alternative sources like solar energy, we are positive that this technology can be used to power EVs as well.

Summary of Three C’s

Mentioning these three drawbacks of EVs are not to destroy our concept of Eidolon and EV feasibility, but rather to tackle the key issues headfirst, and summate solutions so that we can make progress in our vision.

Eidolon can indeed prosper within the next 30 years, but this success is very reliant on how well the EV market can prosper as well. We believe that with a greater output of research and knowledge about how EVs generally operate, the public will become less fearful due to their misconceptions. These misconceptions of the unaffordability of EVs and lack of infrastructure are key components that are holding this market back. Also, the promotion of EV incentives, and advanced infrastructure such as solar-powered charging stations are also bound to improve the quality of EVs and increase sales. Figure 2 below displays the forecast of EV sales in the next ten years. It will not be an easy task for EVs to penetrate the mass market, but through tackling the Three C’s- cost, convenience, and consumption, the EV market can surely make their footprint as a feasible alternative to gas-powered vehicles.

Figure 2

Autonomous Vehicle Market Analysis

The second major market that is critical to Eidolon’s success is the autonomous vehicle market. An autonomous car, also referred to as a driverless or self-driving car, is a computer-controlled vehicle that is designed to travel between destinations without the need of a human driver. To qualify as a fully autonomous vehicle the vehicle must be able to maneuver over a predetermined road that has not been adapted for it without humans interceding.

Cost of Implementation

According to the Boston Consulting Group, “If you want full autonomy—the ability to drive anywhere, with no human input—get ready to add $10,000 to the price tag, at least in the first 10 years the technology’s on the market.” This complete package takes into consideration costs such as the LIDAR (light detection and ranging) which can cost up to $8,000 alone, along with features such as ultrasonic sensors, GPS, the central computer, and video cameras. When this technology is integrated into less expensive EVs such as the Ford Focus Electric, the total can still accumulate to under $40,000. This is simply the starting price of many luxury vehicles such as Acuras, Infinitis, and BMWs. Willingness-to-pay is typically an issue for customers when it comes to autonomous technology, but as a ride-sharing company Eidolon does not have to convince customers to purchase them, because we will purchase our own fleets for customers to lease for their travel. Figure 3 displays forecasts from Business Insider that predict there will be 10 million vehicles with autonomous technology by 2020.

Figure 3

Benefits of Autonomous Technology

Autonomous vehicles have multiple benefits including the availability of higher speed limits since all cars are in constant communication with one another. They are all programmed to maintain a specific interval between one another, and they all know when to expect one another to stop start, so the need to keep in mind human reflexes on the highway will be eliminated. More efficient traffic flow can also improve our use of energy sources, instead of burning energy in traffic and queuing. Also, since the average driver spends about 200 hours a year driving, this time may be used for effectively.

Another benefit of autonomous vehicles includes not having to hunt for parking anymore. Self-driving cars can be programmed to let you off at the front door of your destination, park themselves, and then come and pick you up when you summon them.

Aside from these new luxuries of traveling, autonomous vehicles will not only save money and time, but this technology is also expected to save thousands of lives. According to The Atlantic “Researchers estimate that driverless cars could, by midcentury, reduce traffic fatalities by up to 90 percent. Which means that, using the number of fatalities in 2013 as a baseline, self-driving cars could save 29,447 lives a year. In the United States alone, that's nearly 300,000 fatalities prevented over the course of a decade, and 1.5 million lives saved in a half-century.”

According to Carlos Ghosn, the Chairman and CEO of Renault-Nissan Alliance, manufacturers such as Nissan and Renault expect to have a package of Autonomous Drive technologies on a variety of models by 2020. They have also planned to implement a feature called “Traffic Jam Pilot”, which will provide the use of an autonomous system even in environments with heavy traffic. Renault and Nissan have even partnered with companies like NASA to improve their remote control technology.

Consulting firm Frost & Sullivan and MIRA presented research results on driver activity while in an autonomous vehicle, versus activity while driving. The results of their survey can be found below in Figure 4.

Figure 4

It appears that the drivers with free time were able to utilize this time mostly for business opportunities and further insight through reading (41%), and Web Surfing (45%). We can see that the time spent in an autonomous vehicle was used more productively, so to speak. Individuals who were busy driving spent most time utilizing navigation systems (33%), selecting music (33%), and using other hands-free devices to communicate (49%).

Challenges of Autonomous Technology

As we know, challenges still exist with autonomous technology, such as safety concerns and government regulation. However, our group recently attended the 95th Annual Transportation Research Board (TRB)

Convention in Washington, D.C., where Chris Urmson, Google’s Director of the Self-Driving Car Program presented some of Google’s progress. He displayed how Google has recorded millions of miles in autonomous testing, and although much research is still required, it is a work in progress. Like many other companies, Google is working toward removing bugs from their Self-Driving system, and innovating methods to prevent hacking of autonomous vehicles. Google remains one of the most influential car companies according to Forbes; this can be seen in Figure 5.

With continuous research, adequate funding, and the approval of government authorities, greater progress can be made in autonomous technology.

Figure 5

Ridesharing Market Analysis

A relatively new alternative to conventional transportation making waves through the nation is the idea of Ridesharing. Ridesharing is defined as the ability to arrange for transportation from one place to another without a lot of planning ahead. In other words, a ridesharing pairs a traveler with a service that serves two or more people at once, on short notice. The dynamics of ridesharing are very basic and simple; most ridesharing services available today use smart phone apps as a means of communication and verification.

As of today, there are several ridesharing services available all over the country. The prominent ones recognized nationwide are the Uber and Zipcar service. Uber and Lyft present themselves as an attractive alternative to the conventional and frankly tiresome taxi or yellow cab service. The many selling points of Uber include arranging for transportation on short notice (most Uber drivers arrive within 5 minutes or less), knowing what the driver picking you up looks like before he or she arrives, getting transported in a vehicle that does not look like a conventional and unattractive taxi. Uber drivers have to pass background checks, vehicle history checks and driver history checks as a prerequisite for working for Uber. Uber is successfully shaping

the future based on early results, as they are going toe to toe with the taxi company for the right to be the main means of arranged transportation nationwide. Early results show Uber is winning by a landslide, also seen in Figure 6 below. “The longer Uber exists in a city, the less patient consumers become. In some cities, if users see the nearest Uber is more than even 2-3 minutes away, they are far less likely to request a car, while in other cities wait times as long as 10 minutes are perfectly acceptable. In San Francisco, one study found that just 16 percent of taxis arrived in less than 10 minutes after being called, while 90 percent of ride-sharing cars did” (Ferenstein, 2015).

Figure 6

One of the many benefits of ridesharing is reduced costs of transportation. These days, the cost of getting from one place to another is reaching levels never before imagined. Gas prices, insurance prices, maintenance prices and public transportation prices keep rising and makes it difficult to commute efficiently. Ridesharing companies like Eidolon will solve these problems by cutting down the prices of commuting by encouraging people to “share rides” by commuting together. Another benefit to ridesharing is the effect it has on reducing pollution. Ridesharing cuts down on pollution by reducing the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that are released in the air daily. The daily amount of CO2 released into the air from daily commuters is the number one cause of air pollution in the United States and one of the goals of the government’s involvement in the advancement of ridesharing programs is to hopefully reduce those emissions in half by putting twice the number of people in one car as opposed to two.

Currently ridesharing companies are beginning to take on some of the same endeavors that we intend to with Eidolon. Companies such as GM & Lyft have partnered together to develop projects such as the 2016 Chevy Bolt which was “purposely built for ridesharing”, according to Pamela Fletcher, GM’s chief engineering for EVs. The car includes features such as “large door openings and flat floors, which make entering and exiting the car easier; and on-board cameras that on command project an image of a wide field behind the car onto the car's rearview mirror, which helps with safety when dropping off or picking up passengers in city traffic.” GM and Lyft are also working together to develop an autonomous technology in vehicles as well. GM has already invested $500 million in Lyft. Other tech giants like Google have also partnered with manufacturers like Ford and Chevy for ridesharing studies and autonomous research.

Eidolon Methodology Overview

By isolating Eidolon’s feasibility into three different categories- electric vehicles, autonomous technology, and ridesharing- we were able to analyze the possible success of each market separately. Through researching each of these three markets, we were able to conclude that each one can very well be prosperous under given

conditions. We expect that each of these components will work coherently to pave the way for a ridesharing corporation that operates with solely autonomous EVs. If only one or two of these components are as successful as expected, and one does not prosper, the system can still be successful. However, that is not our complete and ideal concept. We would like to see full fruition in our concept of Eidolon, and according to our research and studies, this is very attainable within the 30 year window. Aside from the successful start-up of Eidolon, we will also be required to take key steps in our methodology, in order to continue the success of the company. These steps will involve support from stakeholders, effective supply chain management, clever marketing, and sustainment of infrastructure.

Reaffirm Stakeholders

We have previously mentioned a variety of our stakeholders such as EV companies like Tesla and BMW, autonomous developers like Google and Daimler AG, and ridesharing partners such as Uber and Lyft. Other stakeholders will include EV battery manufacturers, power plant operators, and software developers for the application. Many of our stakeholders have already begun the process of collaborating to create autonomous ridesharing fleets and EV fleets, so their will to collaborate should not be much of a problems. However, after our research, we have found that one of our most crucial stakeholders will be the public and the government. The government will play a key role in passing legislation to allow the operation of autonomous vehicles. Many Likewise, with many concerns regarding safety, costs, and infrastructure changes, it will indeed be a task to win over much of the public. Many drivers also are adamant about giving away their joy of driving, so to speak. Nonetheless, through continuous testing, research, and development of a positive reputation, Eidolon can earn the trust of our stakeholders.

Supply Chain Management

Our group members have had experience regarding supply chain management in both the classroom and within the work field. Since Eidolon is a ride-sharing company, we do not manufacture vehicles, so the supply chain system may not be as in-depth as other corporations. Just as many current ride-sharing companies, Eidolon simply purchases vehicles for use. Supply chain management is still vital in order to organize our vehicles once in our ownership and to ensure that vehicles undergo proper maintenance and inspection. Even if outside contractors are issued to handle these processes, they must be well-organized and documented. Having been previously employed at Northrop Grumman in the Supply Chain - Transportation & Logistics sector, one of our group members recommended that we use a software database such as SAP, which is used by many large enterprises including Northrop Grumman. SAP will allow our company to keep records and vehicle information on a central system that can be accessed by all employees, as well as contractors and customers that are given permission to do so. A general overview of our supply chain cycle can be viewed below.

Customer

Eidolon Local Hub (inspection,

classification, etc)

Prior Autonomous EV Owners

(Eido-loaners)

Vehicle Manufacturer

Eidolon Local Hub (inspection,

classification, etc)

Strategic Marketing

There are many key strategies in business such as accurately defining your target audience, and identifying an upper hand over your competitors. Since companies such as Uber and Lyft are already talking about establishing autonomous fleets, not only does this convey the feasibility of Eidolon’s existence, but it also identifies a possible competitor in our near future. In order to gain a solid reputation, the Eidolon staff will work diligently to provide reasonable prices, top tier quality, and optimal service. We previously mentioned achieving cost benefits possibly through foreign investments in locations like Norway where EVs are more affordable through government incentives. Optimal quality and service can be obtained by working alongside automakers who manufacture our vehicles for use, and also ensuring that our internal services are up to par. Like current ridesharing companies, Eidolon will also have a variety of incentives for consumers, such as discounted rides and free rides through promotional codes. Overall we plan to refine the Three C’s (cost, convenience, and consumption) in order to present Eidolon as a more affordable, efficient, and environmentally-friendly concept. Ultimately, the positive impacts of such a concept will be able to speak for itself.

Source: http://www.vtpi.org/avip.pdf

Establishing Finances & Funding

Eidolon plans to gain funding through small business loans, seed funding, angel investors, crowdfunding, help from friends and family, and grant proposals. Ride-sharing companies such as Lyft and Uber began with smaller sources such as seed funding, and eventually gained greater investments from larger companies such as Rakuten Inc, a Japanese online retailer, that just invested $150 million in Lyft back in March 2015. Gaining funding is not an easy task, especially for small businesses. However, through consistent networking, developing partnerships, and effectively presenting forecasted success, companies are able to gain investors that can help get them to the next level. We are confident that Eidolon will be able to do just that.

Kickstarter is a newer platform for crowdfunding, which has grown very popular for small business owners or simply individuals with useful ideas. This app has over 10 million users, and is used as a pipeline for artists, inventors, and a variety of other individuals that want to get their ideas out to the public. Through effective video pitches, Kickstarter has been used to fund hundreds of inventions. Other crowdfunding applications that are often beneficial include GoFundMe and RocketHub.

Sustaining Infrastructure

There are not dramatic infrastructure changes that will have to take place for Eidolon to prosper. We are not building an entirely new system of flying cars and trains; although that would be amazing to see, Eidolon is something more attainable but still impactful and innovative. Instead of having to create entirely new infrastructure, our concept simply changes the culture of driving - by essentially removing the driver as a variable. However, as we know, autonomous vehicles and EVs are rather expensive, especially when pondering how to distribute an entire fleet that will meet the demands of our nation. However, we have accepted the challenge. Evidently we will not just wake up one day and Eidolon will be the dominant mode of transportation. It will most likely begin just as we saw the growth of ride-sharing. Within a few years, ride-sharing took over the taxi industry by storm. After speaking to Hugh Thompson of the USDOT Office of Research & Development, we found that in order for autonomous technology to be most effective, approximately 30% of vehicles must be equipped with it. This can very well take time, but researchers predict that in 30 years from now, 1 out of 4 vehicles will be fully autonomous.

Our main infrastructure concerns will be ensuring there are enough vehicles to meet our demand, and also developing enough EV charging stations across the country. EV charging station prices can vary from a small $400 system from Home Depot, to a $7,400 system by Gordon Electric Supply. Charging station prices vary based on the speed of charging, mileage supplied, and a variety of other factors.

Societal Benefits - Summation

Ultimately, Eidolon is a practical and innovative concept that can very well prosper within the next 30 years. As a premier ridesharing corporation, Eidolon will provide a flexible mode of transit for rural, urban, and suburban communities. This will especially be beneficial in a time period where vehicle ownership is forecasted to decline greatly due to gas prices and ownership costs. Operating with only EVs will improve the condition of our environment by dramatically decreasing emission levels while also tackling the issue of fuel consumption. Lastly, our autonomous technology is forecasted to greatly decline traffic rates, increase highway capacity, augment human productivity, enhance overall mobility, and prevent thousands of accidents by removing the variable of human error. Eidolon’s development and expansion is bound to modify our transportation systems in the most efficient way possible. Let Eidolon be your autonomous chauffeur as we travel to a brighter future.

Works Cited

• Accenture. "Seven Success Factors for Electric Vehicle Growth - Accenture." Accenture Consulting. N.p., n.d. Web. https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insight-success-factors-electric-vehicle-growth.aspx

• Alternative Fuels Data Center. "Emissions from Hybrid and Plug-In Electric Vehicles." U.S. Department of Energy. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Jan. 2016. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php

• Bell, Lyndon. "10 Benefits of Self-Driving Cars." Autobytel. Chrome Data Solutions, n.d. Web. 26 Jan. 2016. http://www.autobytel.com/car-ownership/advice/10-benefits-of-self-driving-cars-121032/

• Braun, Peter. "Don't Look so Smug: Your Tesla Might Be Worse for the Environment than a Gas Car." Digital Trends. N.p., 13 Nov. 2013. Web. http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/hold-smugness-tesla-might-just-worse-environment-know/

• Cava, Marco Della. "Chevy's Bolt EV Designed with GM's New Lyft Investment in Mind." USATODAY. N.p., 6 Jan. 2016. Web. http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/01/05/chevys-bolt-ev-designed-gms-new-lyft-investment-mind/78312934/

• Ceciil, Nicholas. "Turn off Your Engines While Queuing at Tower Bridge, Drivers Are Told." Evening Standard. N.p., 11 Feb. 2016. Web. 12 Feb. 2016. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/turn-off-your-engines-while-queuing-at-tower-bridge-drivers-are-told-a3177741.html

• Davies, Alex. "Turns Out the Hardware in Self-Driving Cars Is Pretty Cheap." Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, 22 Apr. 2015. Web. http://www.wired.com/2015/04/cost-of-sensors-autonomous-cars/

• Dunn, Collin. "Generating Off-Grid Power: The Four Best Ways." TreeHugger. N.p., 10 Apr. 2008. Web. http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/generating-off-grid-power-the-four-best-ways.html

• Evarts, Eric. "Affordable 2017 Tesla Model 3 Sedan and Crossover SUV - Consumer Reports." Consumer Reports. N.p., 17 June 2015. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2015/06/coming-soon-affordable-2017-tesla-model-3-sedan-and-crossover/index.htm

• Forint, Peter. "Top 10 Reasons Now Is Time to Buy an EV." LinkedIn. N.p., 29 July 2014. Web. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140729170148-1175067-top-10-reasons-now-is-time-to-buy-an-ev

• Ghosn, Carlos. "The Truth About 'Autonomous Drive' Cars." LinkedIn. N.p., 22 Apr. 2015. Web. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/truth-autonomous-drive-cars-carlos-ghosn

• Hangen, Nathan. "What 7 Key Strategies Must We Learn From Apple Marketing?" Kissmetrics. N.p., 20 Nov. 2010. Web. https://blog.kissmetrics.com/7-strategies-apple-marketing/

• Jolly, David. "Norway Is a Model for Encouraging Electric Car Sales." The New York Times. The New York Times, 16 Oct. 2015. Web. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/business/international/norway-is-global-model-for-encouraging-sales-of-electric-cars.html?_r=1

• Kanenwisher, Boyd. "Tesla Unveils a Battery to Power Your Home, Completely off Grid." Eat Tomorrow Blog. N.p., 09 Sept. 2015. Web. 10 Feb. 2016. http://eattomorrow.com/blog/2015/09/tesla-unveils-a-battery-to-power-your-home-completely-off-grid/

• Lafrance, Adrienne. "Self-Driving Cars Could Save 300,000 Lives Per Decade in America." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 29 Sept. 2015. Web. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/09/self-driving-cars-could-save-300000-lives-per-decade-in-america/407956/

https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insight-success-factors-electric-vehicle-growth.aspx

https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insight-success-factors-electric-vehicle-growth.aspx

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php

http://www.autobytel.com/car-ownership/advice/10-benefits-of-self-driving-cars-121032/

http://www.autobytel.com/car-ownership/advice/10-benefits-of-self-driving-cars-121032/

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/hold-smugness-tesla-might-just-worse-environment-know/

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/hold-smugness-tesla-might-just-worse-environment-know/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/01/05/chevys-bolt-ev-designed-gms-new-lyft-investment-mind/78312934/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/01/05/chevys-bolt-ev-designed-gms-new-lyft-investment-mind/78312934/

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/turn-off-your-engines-while-queuing-at-tower-bridge-drivers-are-told-a3177741.html

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/turn-off-your-engines-while-queuing-at-tower-bridge-drivers-are-told-a3177741.html

http://www.wired.com/2015/04/cost-of-sensors-autonomous-cars/

http://www.wired.com/2015/04/cost-of-sensors-autonomous-cars/

http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/generating-off-grid-power-the-four-best-ways.html

http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/generating-off-grid-power-the-four-best-ways.html

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2015/06/coming-soon-affordable-2017-tesla-model-3-sedan-and-crossover/index.htm

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2015/06/coming-soon-affordable-2017-tesla-model-3-sedan-and-crossover/index.htm

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/truth-autonomous-drive-cars-carlos-ghosn

https://blog.kissmetrics.com/7-strategies-apple-marketing/

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/business/international/norway-is-global-model-for-encouraging-sales-of-electric-cars.html?_r=1

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/business/international/norway-is-global-model-for-encouraging-sales-of-electric-cars.html?_r=1

http://eattomorrow.com/blog/2015/09/tesla-unveils-a-battery-to-power-your-home-completely-off-grid/

http://eattomorrow.com/blog/2015/09/tesla-unveils-a-battery-to-power-your-home-completely-off-grid/

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/09/self-driving-cars-could-save-300000-lives-per-decade-in-america/407956/

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/09/self-driving-cars-could-save-300000-lives-per-decade-in-america/407956/

• Sauber, Natalie. "The Emergence of New Business Models from Autonomous Driving." LinkedIn. N.p., 13 Nov. 2015. Web. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/emergence-new-business-models-from-autonomous-driving-natalie-sauber

• Schaal, Eric. "5 Problems Standing in the Way of Electric Vehicle Adoption." The Cheat Sheet. N.p., 24 Jan. 2015. Web. http://www.cheatsheet.com/automobiles/5-problems-standing-in-the-way-of-electric-vehicle-adoption.html/?a=viewall

• Shahan, Zachary. "Electric Car Charging 101 — Types of Charging, Charging Networks, Apps, & More!" EV Obsession. N.p., 10 Sept. 2015. Web. http://evobsession.com/electric-car-charging-101-types-of-charging-apps-more/

• Stone, Maddie. "Affordable Electric Cars Are Coming Soon, Study Says." Gizmodo. N.p., 5 Apr. 2015. Web. 27 Jan. 2016. http://gizmodo.com/affordable-electric-cars-are-coming-soon-study-says-1695829347

• Thompson, Cadie. "Why No One Will Own a Car in 25 Years." Business Insider. N.p., 29 June 2015. Web. http://www.businessinsider.com/why-no-one-will-own-a-car-in-25-years-2015-6

• Warren, Tamara. "Exclusive: Inside Faraday Future, the Secretive Car Company Chasing Tesla." The Verge. N.p., 19 Nov. 2015. Web. http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/19/9761852/faraday-future-car-company-interview-tour-electric-tesla-competitor

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/emergence-new-business-models-from-autonomous-driving-natalie-sauber

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/emergence-new-business-models-from-autonomous-driving-natalie-sauber

http://www.cheatsheet.com/automobiles/5-problems-standing-in-the-way-of-electric-vehicle-adoption.html/?a=viewall

http://www.cheatsheet.com/automobiles/5-problems-standing-in-the-way-of-electric-vehicle-adoption.html/?a=viewall

http://evobsession.com/electric-car-charging-101-types-of-charging-apps-more/

http://evobsession.com/electric-car-charging-101-types-of-charging-apps-more/

http://gizmodo.com/affordable-electric-cars-are-coming-soon-study-says-1695829347

http://gizmodo.com/affordable-electric-cars-are-coming-soon-study-says-1695829347

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-no-one-will-own-a-car-in-25-years-2015-6

http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/19/9761852/faraday-future-car-company-interview-tour-electric-tesla-competitor

http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/19/9761852/faraday-future-car-company-interview-tour-electric-tesla-competitor

Future of Transportation Case Competition

Beyond Today-The Future of American Transportation

IN-MOTION WIRELESS POWER TRANSFER FOR

CONNECTED ELECTRIC VEHICLES (CEVS)

Team Members

Josh Doran MBA Candidate, Clemson University

Phone: (724) 541-3092, E-mail: [email protected]

Sababa Islam M.S. Student, Glenn Department of Civil Engineering, Clemson University

Phone: (864) 633-9056, E-mail: [email protected]

McKenzie Keehan

M.S. Student, Glenn Department of Civil Engineering, Clemson University Phone: (301) 706-1735, E-mail: [email protected]

Sakib Mahmud Khan

Ph.D. Student, Glenn Department of Civil Engineering, Clemson University Phone: (864) 569-1082, E-mail: [email protected]

Mizanur Rahman

Ph.D. Student, Glenn Department of Civil Engineering, Clemson University Phone: (864) 650-2926, E-mail: [email protected]

Yuheng Du

Ph.D. Student, School of Computing, Clemson University Phone: (864) 643-7130, E-mail: [email protected]

Team Advisors

Dr. Mashrur (Ronnie) Chowdhury Eugene Douglas Mays Professor of Transportation Professor, Department of Automotive Engineering

Clemson University

Dr. Kakan Dey Postdoctoral Fellow Clemson University

Contact Information Sakib Mahmud Khan

351 Flour Daniel, Clemson, SC 29634 Tel: (864) 569-1082

Email: [email protected]

IN-MOTION WIRELESS CHARGING OF CONNECTED ELECTRIC VEHICLE (CELV)

Page | 2

Recent trends in vehicle sales have proven that most Americans are not basing their purchases

on the ability to use eco-friendly alternate fuel vehicles (AFV). The Organization of Petroleum

Exporting Countries predicts that even in 2040, 94% of all vehicles will rely upon fossil fuels1.

Although the federal government has made a giant push to reduce emissions, the transition

from petroleum is moving at a snail’s pace, and it is obvious that petroleum is not going away.

While the need for environmentally friendly and domestically-produced fuels is becoming more

apparent, the hardest push has been to alter consumers’ mindsets during their purchasing

decisions. Unfortunately, the demand for AFVs is not where it needs to be.

Our team has a comprehensive plan to develop the ‘ideal’ transportation system. We, the

Clemson team, propose to develop in-motion wireless power transfer (IWPT) facility for a

specific AFV type, the electric vehicle (EV). We selected the EV over other AFVs for several

reasons. For example, EVs already have a noticeable market share, and use a sustainable

and affordable fueling option-electricity. Electric propulsion emits no tailpipe emissions and, if

the electricity is supplied from renewable sources (e.g., solar and wind energy) there are no

overall greenhouse gas emissions. Given these factors, the question becomes: “How can we

promote EV to mass population to gain significant market share in different scenarios to

implement the ‘ideal’ transportation system?”

In our model, we envision that EVs will run on shared wireless charging lanes that will

supplement fixed static wireless charging stations. We are estimating that IWPT facilities, which

can increase EV driving range up to 62 to 300 miles2, will be commercially implemented in the

next couple of years in US. According to a recent consumer survey, range anxiety was recently

selected as the major drawback of using EVs3. We foresee that IWPT facilities will eliminate

Introduction


Page | 3

EV users’ range anxiety by providing sufficient charging options available along given routes.

We believe that by removing the major consumer concern about EVs, the range anxiety, we

can greatly accelerate their adoption.

While we have a comprehensive plan to establish these IWPT facilities in the US, it is important

to note that this model is not the first of its kind. On-line Electric Vehicle (OLEV) Technologies

has set up the system in Gumi, South Korea for two buses, each operating a continuous 15

mile inner-city route4. We have used different parameters and cost associated with this system

in our analysis. There has been other evidence of expressed interest in the topic as well. For

example, the US Department of Energy (DOE) recently completed a feasibility study on

wireless power transfer to deploy the charging facility5, which shows the Federal government’s

interest in pursuing the advancement of IWPT facilities.

While fuel type played a major role in our ideal transportation system vision, we more

specifically incorporated the EV connectivity as a factor to make the IWPT system successful.

Connected Electric Vehicles (CEVs) will consist of both connected electric buses (CEBs) for

mass transit and connected electric light-duty vehicles (CELVs) which include personal cars,

pickups, small vans, etc. We envision the smart phone application of wireless power transfer

will help the smooth operation of our proposed IWPT system, where vehicle owners can initially

communicate with energy suppliers about the energy requirement via cellular network. CEV

owners will be guided towards the closest power track by the application, and after receiving

power from the tracks, CEV owners will be notified about the received power and transaction

status. We have chosen three pilot project sites for our study, i) City of San Francisco, CA

(urban arterial), ii) section of I-85 in Atlanta, GA (freeway environment), and iii) Madison, FL

(rural two-lane-two-way road). The two alternate EV options considered in this vision are in-


Page | 4

motion charging on power tracks and opportunistic charging (near traffic signals and bus

stops). Throughout the paper, we have laid out our discussion to design the most plausible

model over next 30 years timeline for all the case scenarios, considering current technological

advancement, government initiatives and customer attitudes.

As outlined in the Fuel institute report6, we strongly believe that strong coordination between

the all stakeholders is crucial for successful market deployment of the IWPT system. We

described the roles and responsibilities of existing and new stakeholders associated with IWPT

system implementation as follows.

Existing stakeholders in transportation system:

Auto Industry: One major player in the proposed system will be the auto industry, especially

the automotive companies manufacturing EVs. Apart from equipping vehicles with the wireless

charging capabilities, these companies need to prepare a coalition to help government

finalizing the standards and regulation of the IWPT system.

Public and Private Transportation Companies: Public organizations (i.e. municipalities, DOTs)

own and maintain the road infrastructure. The power tracks are needed to be embedded in the

pavement, and the infrastructure will require frequent maintenance by both

municipalities/DOTs and the Wireless Power Transfer (WPT) company. Private companies like

CEV dealers and after-market service providers will have their distinct role in the CEV

introduction, marketing, promotion and maintenance of CEV. Existing vehicle repair centers,

which mostly deal with gasoline-fueled vehicles, will need to expand their business and

knowledge domain for CEV repair and maintenance.

Stakeholders


Page | 5

Battery Manufacturers: Following the rising demand of CEV, existing battery manufacturers

will need to expand their production and distribution of the CEV batteries.

Vehicle Owners: During regular trips, CELV owners will benefit from the additional option to

recharge the vehicle batteries. This IWPT infrastructure will also affect non-CELV vehicle

drivers due to the additional influx of CELV in specific corridors with charging facilities.

Electricity Suppliers: The additional clean electricity demand can be met by generators run by

public-private partnerships (P3). Recently formed private coalition, Breakthrough Energy

coalition, has identified the establishment of a P3 as a viable option to invest in clean energy

technology7. Successful implementation of such project will supply sufficient electricity to CEV

from clean energy sources.

New stakeholders:

WPT Company: The primary stakeholder in the proposed system will be the WPT Company.

This company will provide both technical (installation and inspection of power tracks) and non-

technical (coordination with other stakeholders) support. This WPT Company will have contract

with 1) DOT to use their infrastructure, 2) electricity supplier, and 3) other external contacts for

required power transfer equipment and power track health inspection sensors, communication

application etc.

Cellular Network Service Provider: We anticipate that the real-time communication between

the CEV owners and WPT Company will happen through cellular network.

External Contractors: The IWPT ecosystem offers a broad potential for different start-up

companies. CEV owners will use cell-phone application to communicate with the IWPT facility.

This application can be developed by individuals/application development companies. Also


Page | 6

external contracts can develop IWPT equipment and sensors (e.g. radiation inspection and

performance monitoring sensors).

Although we did not incorporate discussion regarding stakeholders involved with other vehicle

fuel types, we acknowledge that those stakeholders (i.e. retailers, oil refiners) will have their

own contribution in the competitive vehicle market.

In this section, we have discussed the environmental and social impacts associated with the

IWPT system. While revitalizing the existing transportation system, the IWPT system for CEV

offers distinct advantage in terms of minimizing the adverse environmental effects (e.g. climate

change and associated public health issue). In the 2015 Paris climate conference, several US

states along with other countries have signed an agreement to make all passenger vehicle

sales zero emission vehicles by 20508, where EVs will have high share. Our proposal will

directly contribute to achieve this goal. Also, DOE’s goal is to use the diverse set of clean

energy resources to produce 80% of electricity from by 20359, which will lead towards an IWPT-

incorporated eco-friendly transportation system. The environmental health cost of driving an

EV using electricity from clean energy sources could be as much as 50 percent less than

environmental and health cost of using gasoline10. Moreover, CEVs will help US to put less

stress on gasoline. Gasoline fuel’s efficiency is only about 15%11. Much of the rest is lost as

waste heat, whereas CEVs are more efficient to use the energy.

We believe, consumers would be more inclined towards driving electric vehicles if we eliminate

the time-consuming aspect of the current charging process. The IWPT system will help reduce

battery size by as much as two-thirds (especially for heavy-duty industrial and commercial

vehicles4), which eventually will reduce charging time, and both weight and cost of vehicles.

Societal Goals


Page | 7

Transit vehicles and taxi service providers will significantly benefit, as electricity is relatively

cheaper than gasoline/diesel, which can eventually reduce the cost of vehicle ownership. They

would be able to operate for longer periods if they can get charge while operating. Additionally,

people (especially elderly and disabled people) will benefit by not having to worry about

charging their vehicles overnight or during inclement weather. These conveniences of CEV will

motivate people from different levels of the society to own CEV, which in turn will have positive

environmental impact.

The emergence of zero emission CEVs offers significant potential for sustainable economic

growth in the US. This IWPT facility will create additional job opportunity for CEV and battery

manufacturing, charging lane installation and maintenance.

Our economic analysis covers benefits and costs for two primary participants in the IWPT

system: 1) CELV owners and CEB operating agencies and 2) the WPT Company. We have

compared the per mile operating cost for the proposed CEVs using IWPT facilities vs. gasoline-

powered vehicles. In the urban area, we have performed a cost analysis for both the CELVs

and CEBs. In the freeway and rural scenarios, CEBs are not considered, because buses are

not prevalent on freeways and in rural areas. Additionally, we considered the specifications of

‘Nissan Leaf’ vehicle model for CELV. Moreover, we perceive that the current trend of EV

purchase (government subsidies and other commercial offerings) and maintenance practice

(battery replacement after certain period) will persist.

For the City of San Francisco, we used the city’s average annual cost of gasoline in 2015 of

$2.6512 and the average vehicle’s mileage in 2013 in the US of 23.4 miles/gallon13 to find that

the average gasoline-powered vehicle owner spends approximately $0.11 per mile on fuel

Economics, financial


Page | 8

alone. The Nissan Leaf, however, yields an average travel capacity of 3.5 miles/ kWh14, 15, and

the peak cost of electricity per kWh in San Francisco is $0.08916. These two values produce

an average cost of $0.03 per mile at the peak hour of charging for the average CELV owner.

This provides CELV owners with savings of $0.08 per mile. We also considered the 85%

power transfer efficiency20 while calculating this savings value. However, to make our model

sustainable and prevent reliance on continuous government subsidies, we have added $0.05

to every mile of travel for the CELV owners who are using the IWPT facilities. This model still

provides savings to the CELV owners, while providing reasonable payback to the IWPT

Company. Although we have calculated the savings per mile to a CELV owner based on the

current gasoline price, predictions say that the gasoline price is going to increase in the next

few years21, which will cause more impressive savings for CEV owners and, in turn, a greater

incentive to purchase CEVs. The same energy cost comparison analysis is completed for the

standard diesel transit bus vs. the CEBs that we plan to implement in our system. The

estimated average cost for a diesel bus is $1.10 per mile, while cost for the electric bus is $0.18

per mile. Thus savings for CEBs charging (including 85% power transfer efficiency) is

substantial ($0.92 per mile), but to provide an economically sustainable model we have

reduced the savings to $0.42 per mile, providing $0.50 per mile to the WPT Company.

While considering the cost of the installation of the power tracks, the length of the power track

installed for CEB is 2% of the entire length of the proposed bus routes17. In case of the city of

San Francisco, one bus route is selected to be solely operated by CEBs. There are 7 total

transit stops along the route, and a 10 meter power track is placed at each for optimum

charging. The fixed cost per track has been reduced by 40%, based on the California Clean

Truck, Bus, and Off-Road Vehicle and Equipment Technology Program, which provides


Page | 9

funding for heavy-duty vehicles (both zero and near-zero emission). This Program is expected

to allocate funding annually ($12 million to $20 million) through January 1, 201822. An additional

variable cost of $500 per meter17 is added to the fixed cost of each power track. Considering

the fixed and the variable costs the total cost for installation of a transit route is $365,000. For

the CELVs, the ideal locations for the power tracks is in the low speed areas where many

CELVs could easily use the IWPT. We have placed them at signalized intersections throughout

the city in sections of 40-meter strips, which can charge up to 13 CELVs at a time. We

considered the installation of the power tracks at the 50% of signalized intersections in the city

with the highest amount of traffic, at the two directions of travel with the highest volumes. We

have added cost for 200 40-meter long power tracks to be used in other areas of San Francisco

with the highest annual average daily traffic. These additional areas may include other

signalized intersections, un-signalized intersections, or segments of roadway with

uninterrupted flow. The total cost for infrastructure installation in San Francisco, California is

found to be $94,850,000.

Given such high costs for infrastructure, it is essential to consider the motivation for the

companies responsible for such high upfront costs. As previously stated, we have included

costs to the CELV owners and CEB companies $0.05 and $0.5 per mile respectively for every

time they charge their vehicle. We assume the CELVs and CEBs are using the WPT facilities

50% and 100% of the time, respectively. For the CELVs, we assume the other 50% of

necessary power for the vehicle will come from other charging options such as static charging

stations. Given the aforementioned assumptions, the annual income of the WPT Company

from CELVs will be $10,844,902 per year and from the CEB agencies will be approximately

$53,290 per year, yielding total annual earnings of $10,898,192.


Page | 10

In Atlanta, Georgia and Madison, Florida the economic analysis for the CELV owners’ savings

and the cost and profit to the WPT companies are also conducted. However, due to the

different functional classes of each roadway, different assumptions are made for these two

scenarios. First, in the case of Atlanta, GA, 28 tracks of 1 mile each are installed to provide

wireless power supply18, accounting for approximately 40% of the 71-mile length of I-85 in the

Greater Atlanta Area. This lane would be the current High Occupancy Toll lane that charges a

fee to regular cars for usage. However, our model will charge the CELV owners for the amount

of power used for charging only, so that they do not have to pay the congestion fee, providing

a major incentive to EV users. It is assumed that CELV drivers that utilize I-85 for their daily

commutes will use IWPT 90% of the time due to this major incentive. Then, for Madison, FL,

we have analyzed the cost of adding infrastructure to a two-lane two-way road and assumed

that 2% of vehicles utilizing this roadway are EVs19. 20 miles of power tracks are necessary on

the 71-mile roadway segment16. For payback to the infrastructure companies, it is assumed

that CELV drivers utilizing the rural road for intercity connection will use IWPT 100% of the time

that they are driving along this roadway. We assume the drivers will require charging for the

full length of their commute on this roadway due to limited charging stations and high amounts

of range anxiety present in rural areas. Table 1 below shows all values associated with the

calculations that are made based on these assumptions.

Table 1: CELV Scenarios

Location Type Urban Arterial Freeway Rural road

City of Case Study San Francisco, CA Atlanta, GA Madison, FL

CE

LV

Ow

ner

Price of Electricity + Infrastructure ($/mi) 0.080 0.079 0.081

Savings per Mile - EV vs. Gasoline ($/mi) 0.033 0.021 0.032

Infr

astr

uctu

re

Number of Tracks 1,355 28 20

Total Length of Tracks (m) 54,200 45,061 32,187

Total Infrastructure Cost ($) $94,850,000.00 $23,930,500.00 $17,093,450.00

Annual Infrastructure Profit ($/year) $10,844,902.29 $3,159,901.38 $103,660.00


Page | 11

According to the National Academy of Sciences, in the next 20 years the total miles driven by

Americans will increase by 40%23. We recognize that fossil fuels will continue to dominate the

market in next few decades. Therefore, the petroleum retail stores will not be significantly

affected in the upcoming decades. We believe, because EVs are on the rise, the optimal

solution is to combine dynamic charging infrastructure with existing gas stations. Figure 1

illustrates different components of the IWPT infrastructure. Each electric vehicle has a pickup

device, battery, regulator, and motor. The power track is the charging unit, and it consists of an

inductive track, and an inverter. From the public electric grid, electricity will be supplied to the

inverter in the power track. Electricity passes from the inverter through the coiled inductive track

placed underneath the road. Finally electricity is transmitted to the vehicle while the vehicle

passes over the track. By converting the electromagnetic field into electricity, the power is

produced at the pickup device. Depending on the battery’s energy level and the power

requirement of the motor, the collected electricity is distributed to the battery or to the motor via

the regulator, or both. The major costs to operate the IWPT system include installation cost,

maintenance and operations cost. A break-

even analysis for different scenarios (i.e.,

urban, freeway, rural areas) was conducted

to estimate the number of years to make

WPT Company profitable based-on

installation cost. As the total service life of a

power-track is 10 years, all the break-even analysis of the IWPT infrastructure is for 10 years17.

Note that our break-even analysis is based on the WPT Company perspective and we exclude

Infrastructure


Page | 12

vehicle battery cost for our break-even analysis, EV owners will carry battery replacement cost.

In addition, there are a number of costs associated to the maintenance and operations of the

IWPT highway infrastructure, such as, costs to train track maintenance personnel in managing

the IWPT system, which we excluded for our break-even point analysis.

Figure 2 Break-Even analysis for CELVs Vehicles for urban area

Figure 3 Break-Even analysis for CEBs for urban area

From the break-even analysis, we observe that the WPT Company will become profitable after

6 and 7 years after implementation of IWPT system for CELV and CEB, respectively (as shown

in Figure 2 and 3). Break-even analysis for freeway and rural areas revealed that it is not

feasible to implement IWPT infrastructures as the service life of power track is 10 years, which

is less than calculated break-even years. Over the years, the penetration of CEV will increase

in urban areas as it is a profitable business for WPT Company and eventually it will increase

the penetration of CEV on freeway and rural areas.

Following ‘Global EV Outlook’s25 report’s recommendation, we believe the proper integration

of IWPT system in an existing EV ecosystem is required. While selecting the pilot deployment

sites, we considered areas with minimum of 2% EV use. These successful pilot projects’ output

will help deploy wide scale infrastructure more efficiently around the country, and grow more

consumer attraction to help accelerate CEV adoption.

Marketing


Page | 13

Consumer education: The aforementioned report revealed that large amount of under-

education about the basic characteristics of EV has hindered the market growth25. Public

education campaigns of CEV will highlight the positive attributes and benefits of CEV. Target

marketing with the younger population could be key to helping CEVs attain a sustainable

presence in the vehicle market. However, it will take more than just convincing customers that

they are helping the environment and saving money to buy a CELV. Comfortable features,

stylish designs and functional space with wide variety of CELV model will be needed to gain

consumer attention. Much of the population knows about hybrid EVs which are growing in

market share each year. An aspect that has made them attractive is their similarity in looks and

practicality to regular car models. Some cars (Toyota Prius) are less attractive and functional,

however, the new Ford Fusion and Chevy Malibu, for example, have electric capabilities but

are in line with the other cars in the manufacturer's stylish car lineups. This offers drivers the

option to still drive attractive looking vehicles while gaining the benefit of being greener and

saving money. This is important in gaining market share among millennials who could become

customers for life.

Motivating vehicle dealers: Developing strong relations with vehicle dealers will be the key to

marketing and informing consumers of this CEV option. A possible program could be where

dealers attract CEV buyers by allowing them to “try before they buy” strategy, where CEV

buyers will have hands-on experience about the IWPT facility. Much in the way that car

companies offer rebates to dealers for new vehicles that are sold; a similar manner may be

employed with CEVs to help incentivize sales from dealerships. This would help grow a

stronger connection to the front end of this market, where most of the sales would occur.


Page | 14

Timeline: In the first 3-5 years, a public campaign is needed to generate the demand in other

areas of US. In next 10-20 years, both public and private investments are needed to reduce

production cost of battery and power tracks, as well as increase the efficiency of IWPT system.

This would assist in reducing costs and increasing the ranges of CEV, once again helping to

make them more marketable to consumers. During the 10-30 year range we would focus on

increasing CEV users as they would realize the similar performance levels of CEVs to

substitute. During this decade, tiered products that come at different price levels would enter

that market. Much in the way that current vehicles have different luxury levels, this sort of

differentiation would be introduced for CEVs. This would help capture a larger portion of the

market because we could cater the price levels to the taste of consumers.

The reinvented supply chain for CEV would be managed in a smart and efficient way so as to

cut costs as much as possible, as described below for different scenarios. Using logistics

services and up to date monitoring of the products, the WPT Company would provide service

in a timely and efficient manner.

Urban Scenario: It would be vital to partner with the DOT/municipalities for each market the

WPT Company enters. This would help make the most of their current resources and provide

the WPT Company with a framework in which to lay the IWPT facility. Over the first several

years as the WPT Company enters the market, they would need to secure relationships with

channel partners that the company will develop and grow over the next ten years. The end

goal would be to have as many of them located regionally in each market so as to minimize

transportation costs. With Just-In-Time logistics, they are able to minimize their inventories and

save on holding costs. If WPT Company stored the energy storage and power conversion

Supply Chain


Page | 15

systems in warehouses, new orders could easily be completed and delivered in a timely

fashion in case of emergency maintenance. As the contracts between the WPT Company

outside suppliers grew, they would be more willing to locate near our biggest markets since it

would benefit both parties. After the first ten years, the WPT Company would be able to

generate more competition for contracts for materials, power tracks, and so forth, who would

locate near the CEV owners to ease issues and be able to have face to face communication

when needed. In addition, the larger the WPT market share grew, the more the company may

be able to take advantage of economies of scale and start to produce more of the materials

and infrastructure needed for wireless power transfer in-house.

Rural road and Freeway Scenario: The best way to deal with the power tracks is to have mobile

teams that can travel to rural areas (if implemented) to address problems when needed. The

laying of the power track would be completed by a team that is based out of an urban district.

When the project was completed, they would return with all the machines and technology until

a new rural area was targeted. When trying to move into

the interstate, a similar methodology would be utilized.

A downside to the supply chain for the proposed

transportation would be the high costs of expanding the

IWPT network to lower population density areas. It

would harder to do this in the initial years of operation,

until marginal costs decreased and customer interest

rose. When this happens, it will be cheaper to grow in

rural areas and there will be higher revenue potentials.

Figure 4 Battery supply, transaction and electricity flow


Page | 16

Payment flow: In IWPT system, CEV owners will be charged based on the consumed

electricity. The WPT Company will maintain an IT infrastructure with the detail identity and

subscription information of the CEV users. When a CEV will go over a power track, the

consumed electricity will be recorded in the in-house IT system, and CEV users will be charged

accordingly (as shown in Figure 4).

Although IWPT system is successfully implemented in Korea, recent DOE research

initiatives on dynamic wireless power transfer system show strong inclination of US

government to implement this system within the next several years. In this paper, based

on our analysis, we have established the fact that CEVs powered by IWPT facilities have

great potentials in the US transportation energy sector in supporting EV charging. IWPT

will promote faster adoption of EVs that will in turn support a significant increase in the

deployment of IWPT. However, this project does not offer desired return for a rural

scenario life. Here we need to restate that we considered the base year EV market share

for our analysis, and certainly this share will increase once we have the IWPT system

implemented.

This year’s Fuel Institute’s case competition challenge is launched acknowledging the

changes in federal rules that aim to curb global air quality and reliance on foreign

resources. IWPT-supported CEV can help to achieve this long-term goal. By

implementing IPWT facilities in the urban areas and freeways, following the marketing

strategy and supply chain system presented in this paper, we are guaranteed to take one

giant step towards the desired ‘ideal’ transportation sustainable system.

Conclusion


Page | 17

1. Farooqui, A. (2015, December 29). “94% Of All Cars Will Be Powered By Fossil Fuels In 2040”. Retrieved February 10, 2016, from http://www.ubergizmo.com/2015/12/94-of-all-cars-will-be-powered-by-fossil-fuels-in-2040/: 2. Mearian, L. (2015, October 27). “Researchers developing roads that charge your electric car while you're driving”. Retrieved January 28, 2016, from http://www.computerworld.com/article/2998356/telematics/researchers-developing-roads-that-charge-your-electric-car-while-youre-driving.html 3. Bartlett, J. (2012, January 30). “Survey: Consumers express concerns about electric, plug-in hybrid cars”. Retrieved February 1, 2016, from http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2012/01/survey-consumers-express-concerns-about-electric-plug-in-hybrid-cars/index.htm 4. Rovito, Y. (2014, May 1). “OLEV Technologies’ dynamic wireless inductive system charges vehicles while in motion”. Retrieved December 12, 2015, from https://chargedevs.com/features/olev-technologies-dynamic-wireless-inductive-system-charges-vehicles-while-in-motion/ 5. Jones, P. (2013, May 15). “Dynamic Wireless Power Transfer (DWPT) Feasibility Study”. Retrieved December 13, 2015, from http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f13/vss104_jones_2013_o.pd 6. Institute, F. (2013). “Tomorrow's Vehicles. What will we drive in 2023?” Retrieved January 12, 2016, from http://fuelsinstitute.org/ResearchArticles/TomorrowsVehicles.pdf 7. Breakthrough Energy Coalition. (2015). Retrieved February 2, 2016, from http://www.breakthroughenergycoalition.com/en/index.html 8. King, D. (2015, December 11). “ZEV Alliance sets huge zero-emission goal for 2050 at COP21”. Retrieved January 2, 2016, from http://www.autoblog.com/2015/12/11/zev-alliance-zero-emission-goal-2050-cop21/ 9. Hollett, D. (2015, March). “Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy FY 2016 Budget Overview”. Retrieved January 3, 2016, from http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/03/f20/FY 2016 Renewable Webinar Presentation.pdf 10. Magill, B. (2014, December 15). “Electric Cars a Mixed Bag For Health, Climate”. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from http://www.climatecentral.org/news/electric-cars-mixed-bag-for-climate-18447 11. Consumer energy Center. “Energy Losses in a Vehicle”. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/consumer_tips/vehicle_energy_losses.html 12. Gas Buddy, Retrieved January 20, 2016, from http://www.sanfrangasprices.com/San_Francisco/index.aspx

13. Los Angeles Times, “Fuel Economy” Retrieved January , 2016, from http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/fuel-economy/featured/2

Appendix A: References

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2012/01/survey-consumers-express-concerns-about-electric-plug-in-hybrid-cars/index.htm

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2012/01/survey-consumers-express-concerns-about-electric-plug-in-hybrid-cars/index.htm

https://chargedevs.com/features/olev-technologies-dynamic-wireless-inductive-system-charges-vehicles-while-in-motion/


http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f13/vss104_jones_2013_o.pd

http://www.breakthroughenergycoalition.com/en/index.html

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/12/11/zev-alliance-zero-emission-goal-2050-cop21/

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/12/11/zev-alliance-zero-emission-goal-2050-cop21/

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/electric-cars-mixed-bag-for-climate-18447

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/electric-cars-mixed-bag-for-climate-18447

http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/consumer_tips/vehicle_energy_losses.html

http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/consumer_tips/vehicle_energy_losses.html

http://www.sanfrangasprices.com/San_Francisco/index.aspx

http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/fuel-economy/featured/2


Page | 18

14. Plug in America, “How Much Does It Cost To Charge An Electric Car?” Retrieved January , 2016, from http://www.pluginamerica.org/drivers-seat/how-much-does-it-cost-charge-electric-car 15. US. Department of Energy, Retrieved February , 2016, from http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ 16. Electricity Local, “San Francisco, CA Electricity Statistics”, Retrieved February , 2016, from http://www.electricitylocal.com/states/california/san-francisco/ 17. Jeong, Seungmin, Young Jae Jang, and Dongsuk Kum. "Economic Analysis of the Dynamic Charging Electric Vehicle." Power Electronics, IEEE Transactions on 30.11 (2015): 6368-6377. 18. Xei and Huang (2015), “An Optimal Deployment of Wireless Charging Lane for Electric Vehicles on Highway Corridors”. 19. Which States Have The Most Electric Vehicles? Map Shows Cleaner Cars Are Rolling Out In A Patchwork Of States, Retrieved February , 2016, from http://www.ibtimes.com/which-states-have-most-electric-vehicles-map-shows-cleaner-cars-are-rolling-out-1747279 20. “OLEV Technologies’ dynamic wireless inductive system charges vehicles while in motion”. Retrieved December 12, 2015, from https://chargedevs.com/features/olev-technologies-dynamic-wireless-inductive-system-charges-vehicles-while-in-motion/) 21. Short-Term Energy Outlook, Retrieved February , 2016, from http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/ 22. Alternative Fuels Data Center, Retrieved February , 2016, from http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/laws/ELEC/CA 23. Supply and Demand, National Academy of Science. Retrieved February , 2016, from http://www.nap.edu/reports/energy/supply.html

http://www.pluginamerica.org/drivers-seat/how-much-does-it-cost-charge-electric-car

http://www.pluginamerica.org/drivers-seat/how-much-does-it-cost-charge-electric-car

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/

http://www.electricitylocal.com/states/california/san-francisco/

http://www.electricitylocal.com/states/california/san-francisco/

http://www.ibtimes.com/which-states-have-most-electric-vehicles-map-shows-cleaner-cars-are-rolling-out-1747279

http://www.ibtimes.com/which-states-have-most-electric-vehicles-map-shows-cleaner-cars-are-rolling-out-1747279



http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/laws/ELEC/CA

http://www.nap.edu/reports/energy/supply.html


Page | 19

Table 1

Infrastructure Material and Installation Unit Costs

Unit Cost of a Single Power Track $50,000.00

Unit Cost per Meter of Power Tracks $500.00

Case scenario I: City of San Francisco, CA

Connected Electric Light Weight Vehicle (CELV)

Table 2


1 Electricity price ($/kWh) 0.0898

2 Travel capacity (mi/kWh) (Nissan leaf) 3.5

3 Price per Mile for EV ($/mi) 0.0302

4 Price of Gasoline 2015 ($/gal) 2.65

5 Average Car Mileage per Gal (2015) 23.4

6 Price per Mile for Gas Car ($/mi) 0.118834

7 Raw Savings per mile* 0.0886

8 Added Cost per Mile for Infrastructure 0.05

9 New Cost per Mile EV ($/mi) 0.0802

10 Savings per Mile EV ($/mi)** 0.0386

* Raw Savings per mile= Price per Mile for Gas Car- Price per Mile for EV ** Savings per Mile EV= Price per Mile for Gas Car- New Cost per Mile EV

Table 3

Connected Electric Light Weight Vehicle (CELV) Infrastructure Details

1 Total Number of Tracks 1355

2 Length of Each Track (m) 40

3 Total Length of Power Track (m) (row 1*row 2) 54,200

4 Total Cost of EV Power Track ($) $94,850,000.00

Appendix B: Calculation for Economic Analysis


Page | 20

Table 4

*VMT of SF = Number of PC in SF

Number of PC in California* VMT (California)

** VMT EV in SF**= VMT of SF *Number of EV in SF

Number of PC in SF

*** Annual Profit to Infrastructure = VMT EV in SF* Added Cost per Mile for Infrastructure (0.05)*50%

Connected Electric Bus (CEB)

Table 5

* Raw Savings per mile= Price per Mile for Gas Bus- Price per Mile for CEB ** Savings per Mile EV= Price per Mile for Gas Bus- Price per Mile for CEB ($/mi)

Connected Electric Light Weight Vehicle (CELV) Annual Profit to Infrastructure Company

1 Number of EV in San Francisco 38811

2 VMT (California) 320,784,000,000

3 Number of PC in SF 385,442

4 Number of PC in California 28,700,000

5 VMT SF* 4,308,140,297

6 VMT EV in SF** 433,796,091.4

7 Annual Profit to Infrastructure EV*** $10,844,902.29

Connected Electric Bus (CEB)

1 Price / kWh ($/kWh) 0.0898

2 Travel capacity (mi/kWh) 0.57

3 Price per Mile for CEB ($/mi) 0.185346

4 Price of Diesel 2015 ($/gal) 3.59

5 Average Bus Millage per Gal (2015) 3.26

6 Price per Mile for Gas Bus ($/mi) 1.101227

7 Raw Savings per mile 0.915881



10 Savings per Mile EV ($/mi) 0.415881


Page | 21

Table 6

Connected Electric Bus (CEB) Infrastructure Details

Number of Routes 1

Total Bus Route Length (m) 6437

Two Percent Bus Route Length (m) 128.74

Number of Bus Stops on Route 7

Length of Power Track per Stop (m) 10

Additional Power Tracks Along Route 3

Length of Each Additional Power Track (m) 20

Total Number of Power Tracks 10

Total Adjusted Length of Power Track (m) 130

Total Cost of EB Power Track ($) $365,000.00 *Total Cost of CEB Power Track ($) = (Total Number of Tracks* Total Number of Tracks) + (Total Length of

Power Track (m)* Unit Cost per Meter of Power Tracks)

Table 6

Connected Electric Bus (CEB) Annual Profit to Infrastructure Company

Number of Trips Per Route Per Day 73

Length of Route (mi) 4

Days Per Year 365

Annual Profit to Infrastructure CEB* $53,290.00 * Annual Profit to Infrastructure CEB = Number of Trips per Route per Day* Length of Route (mi)* 365* Added Cost

per Mile for Infrastructure (0.5)

Table 7

Total Annual Profit to Infrastructure Company

CELV Annual Profit to Infrastructure $10,844,902.29

CEB Annual Project to Infrastructure $53,290.00

Total Annual Profit to Infrastructure* $10,898,192.29 * Total Annual Profit to Infrastructure = CELV Annual Profit to Infrastructure+ CEB Annual Project to Infrastructure


Page | 22

Case scenario II: I-85 Atlanta, GA

Table 8


1 Electricity price ($/kWh) (Atlanta) 0.1168

2 Travel capacity (mi/kWh) (Nissan leaf) 3.5

3 Price per Mile for EV ($/mi) 0.039

4 Price of Gasoline 2015 ($/gal) 2.34

5 Average Car Millage per Gal (2015) 23.4

6 Price per Mile for Gas Car ($/mi) 0.10

7 Raw Savings per mile 0.0607



10 Savings per Mile EV ($/mi) 0.0207

Table 9


Infrastructure Details

Total Number of Tracks 28

Length of Each Track (mile) 1

Total Length of Power Track (m)

45061

Total Cost of EV Power Track ($)*

$23,930,500.00

*Total Cost of EV Power Track ($) = (Total Number of Tracks* Total Number of Tracks)

+ (Total Length of Power Track (m)* Unit Cost per Meter of Power Tracks)

Table 10

Demographics Used in Calculation

Number of Households in GA 3,648,768

Number of Households in ATL 192,056

Veh per Household in GA 2.2

Veh per Household in ATL 1.7


Page | 23

Table 11

Connected Electric Light Weight Vehicle (CELV) Annual Profit to Infrastructure Company

AADT 211,000

Number of EV in Atlanta 10,482

Number of PC in Atlanta* 326,495.2

Number of PC in Georgia** 8,027,289.6

VMT I 85*** 2,734,032,500

VMT EV in I-85**** 87,775,038.24

Annual Profit to Infrastructure EV***** $3,159,901.38

* Number of PC in Atlanta = Number of Households in ATL* Veh per Household in ATL ** Number of PC in Georgia= Number of Households in GA* Veh per Household in GA *** VMT in I-85= AADT*365 * Length of the stretch of the roadway (71)*0.5

**** VMT EV in I-85= VMT in I-85* Number of EV in ATL

Number of PC in ATL

***** Annual Profit to Infrastructure EV = VMT EV in I-85* Added Cost per Mile for Infrastructure (0.04)*90%

Case scenario III: Two-lane Two-way Rural Road, Madison, FL

Table 12


1 Electricity price ($/kWh) (Atlanta) 0.0919 2 Travel capacity (mi/kWh) (Nissan leaf) 3.5 3 Price per Mile for EV ($/mi) 0.0309 4 Price of Gasoline 2015 ($/gal) 2.65 5 Average Car Millage per Gal (2015) 23.4 6 Price per Mile for Gas Car ($/mi) 0.113248 7 Raw Savings per mile 0.0824 8 Added Cost per Mile for Infrastructure 0.05 9 New Cost per Mile EV ($/mi) 0.0809 10 Savings per Mile EV ($/mi) 0.0324


Page | 24

Table 13

Connected Electric Light Weight Vehicle (CELV) Infrastructure Details

Total Number of Tracks 20

Length of Each Track (m) 1 mile

Total Length of Power Track (m) 32,186.9

Total Cost of EV Power Track ($) $17,093,450.00

Table 14

Passenger Car Annual Profit to Infrastructure Company

Percentage of EV in Florida 2%

AADT in rural road 8000

VMT EV in stretch Florida rural road* 2,073,200

Annual Profit to Infrastructure EV** $103,660.00

* VMT EV in stretch Florida rural road = Percentage of EV out of total PC in Florida (2%) * 0.5*365 days* AADT in rural road

*Length of the stretch of the roadway (71 mi)

** Annual Profit to Infrastructure EV = VMT EV in stretch Florida rural road* Added Cost per Mile for Infrastructure

Sustainable Shared Mobility Clemson University International Center for Automotive Research

Team Members:

Nandan Vora [email protected] (812) 603-3073

Harrit Diwan [email protected] (864) 553-3973

Siddhant Jain [email protected] (864) 349-8621

Piyush Agarwal [email protected] (864) 603-4605

Taushif Vohra [email protected] (224) 578-6182

Shreyansh Gaur [email protected] (864) 908-6970

Introduction

With the proliferation of urban centers, rising salaries, improvement in standards of living,

the number of private vehicles have increased dramatically. At present there are over 250

million cars plying on US roads, with around 3 million added each year. This has outpaced

infrastructure development by leaps and bounds. Although a number of innovative

mobility solutions have been proposed, there is still need for a comprehensive approach

to tackle this issue at hand.

What we propose is an integrated, decentralized transportation model capable of catering

to the specialized needs and demands of urban, suburban and rural sectors.

Our model is based on current technology and infrastructure, along with certain feasible

future innovations, such as highly efficient, pure electric pods and autonomous driving

capability, which are already emerging in the market today. We envision a distributed

mobility network that reduces congestion, cuts short travel time and provides maximum

flexibility and convenience to the users, and also addresses the issue of economic and

environmental sustainability.

On the basis of population density, traffic congestion and air pollution levels, we propose

the following classifications with their specialized mobility solutions.

High density urban sprawls and downtown regions will be classified as Intracity zones.

Being prone to traffic congestion as well as dangerously high levels of air pollution, they

will utilize purely electric autonomous vehicles. These vehicles will consist of a distributed

fleet of on-demand autonomous pods, with their operation comparable to present day

Uber and Lyft. They will seat anywhere between 2-4 people, and will transport occupants

within the radius defined for each city’s model. Operated on a subscription basis, this

ecosystem will be beneficial to subscribers in terms of cost and availability, and will help

regulate traffic patterns, reduce congestion and eliminate hassle of finding parking spots

while simultaneously improving air quality through reduced and cleaner fuel consumption.

Outside the city limits, lower population density suburbs as well as connecting

expressways are classified as Intercity zones. Here, we propose the use of conventional

IC engine vehicles alongside other existing mass transit options like Caltrain and Amtrak.

The main focus will be to provide a smooth transition from intracity zones to suburbs and

the countryside as well as sustainable mobility between any two intracity zones.

We propose a subscription model that, apart from being a sustainable option for newer

technologies, will help in congestion control and also reducing the effective number of

vehicles on the road by providing maximum utility of the idle time of vehicles.

The intercity commutes will be facilitated through two forms of transportation models. The

first one is a fleet of subscription cars which can be boarded from the parking space

outside the intracity commute radius and the second one is the alternative of shared

transportation in the form of electric autonomous shuttles. The pool of the subscription

cars will have a mix of all types of powertrain configurations, electric, hybrid or internal

combustion engine, with the added option of autonomous driving which offers subscribers

complete flexibility and freedom during long distance commutes.

Subscription models are gaining traction in a number of consumer products and the

transportation sector is no different. Millennials, born with smartphones and constant

connectivity, have shown a general reluctance towards personal ownership of cars,

especially in high density regions. With the success of companies like Uber© and Lyft©,

this trend can only be validated, and we believe that a loose ownership model like the

subscription model proposed will become the norm in the future for the mobility industry.

A recent startup by the name of Clutch© has already started working in this direction. The

startup provides subscription to their fleet of cars on a monthly basis. The subscribers

can select the car that they want for a specific purpose through Clutch’s mobile app and

get the car delivered at their home.

Stakeholders

While the model proposed above will be integrated at a very gradual pace into the existing

mobility ecosystem, it will prove highly disruptive in the long term. A number of traditional

roles in the auto industry will be redefined and certain others may even become non-

existent. Gaining widespread acceptance for this model as well as ensuring a smooth

transition from the current scenario requires an understanding of all the stakeholders,

including newer entrants.

Current stakeholders that will be most affected by this change are detailed below.

Customer: The customers are one of the most important stakeholders in this model and

their acceptance is the key to success. We aim to empower the customer with safe and

reliable on-demand mobility, keeping the subscription cost comparable to that of car

ownership while highlighting the lack of hassle associated with car ownership. We believe

this can be an attractive value proposition.

OEMs: OEMs will be greatly affected by the proposed model. With a shift towards vehicle

sharing and leasing, OEMs will be forced to focus more on fleet sales as compared to the

present approach of selling directly to customers. However, as the daily number of miles

travelled by each vehicle increases due to car sharing, fleet turnover will become faster

and at the same time revenue through maintenance and repairs will also increase.

Government: Even with widespread customer acceptance, the role of the government

cannot be undervalued. The cooperation of Federal and State regulating bodies, policy

makers as well as public transportation corporations will be required for zone

categorization and limiting existing vehicle movement. Furthermore, initial investment,

subsidization and incentives will have to be provided not only to OEMs and private

operators of these services, but to the people as well.

Existing service operators: The new operators of this subscription based model are

expected to be private-public partnerships with initial incentives provided by the local

governing bodies. Existing mobility service providers like Uber and car-sharing platforms

like Zipcar have the potential to quickly adapt to the new service model, especially the

intracity aspect. Car renting services like Avis and Enterprise will find application in the

intercity transportation model.

Insurance Companies: The proposed transportation model will create a more stringent

demand for insurance of the cars, pods and mass transit vehicles in the subscription fleet.

A possibility could be a partnership in the future between the subscription providers and

the insurance companies. The lack of involvement of the customers simplifies matters

significantly for the insurance sector.

Public/Taxi drivers: The present advancements in autonomous vehicle functionality,

already prove to be a rising threat to the livelihoods of taxi drivers. While the proposed

model may accelerate the transition to fully autonomous vehicles, especially in urban

environments, job creation for management of this mobility system as well as intercity

mass transit can offset this to some extent.

Dealerships: Through the new subscription base model, car dealerships will also have

to adopt a different approach to remain profitable. While the number of direct customers

will decrease, car dealerships can make use of their existing stock as well as association

with OEMs to directly partner with service providers. They may also profit from the

increased maintenance and repair work.

Petrochemical industry: Even with the widespread adoption of the proposed model,

liquid fuels will remain a dominating force in freight as well as intercity travel. Advances

in battery technology will inevitably lead to the phasing out of combustion engines,

however this is irrespective of the proposed model.

Societal goals

With a focus on customer convenience as well as sustainability, our model can prove

highly beneficial over the long term not only in the United States, but also in developing

countries like China and India. A major source of pollution in megacities is eliminated

through the use of pure electric pods. This in itself directly cuts down emissions, replacing

fuel guzzling taxicabs and private vehicles within the city. According to the US Department

of Energy’s Alternative Fuels Data Center, the national average of annual emissions per

vehicle is about 12000 pounds of CO2 equivalent as opposed to 5000 pounds of C02

equivalent for an electric vehicle [1]. This is the scenario today, when according to the

same source, natural gas and coal account for more than 50% of electricity production.

This leads to higher emissions in the well to wheels scenario. With future advances in

power generation through alternative energy sources like wind and solar a near zero

value of emissions is not unthinkable. Further reduction of fuel consumption will be

achieved due to low speed, autonomous capability which ensures the vehicle operates in

the highest efficiency zone. Purer air quality will directly impact health, reducing the

occurrence of long term illnesses such as asthma, bronchitis and even cancer.

Moreover, the pods being autonomous will help regulate traffic patterns within cities,

which today are plagued by congestion, long travel times, erratic driving and frequent

accidents. Hassles of private car ownership, such as locating parking spots and paying

heftily for parking will also be mitigated.

In broad terms, our model promotes shares mobility over private ownership, thus bringing

down daily cost of transportation per person. Simply put, reduction in the number of cars

on the road coupled with electric vehicles comprising a certain, prominent percentage of

total vehicles brings down fuel costs as well as annual maintenance costs.

Policy opportunity and challenges

The 2025 fuel economy regulations recently passed by the Obama Administration

mandate 54.5 mpg or equivalent for car and light-duty trucks. [2] These regulations will

only grow more stringent over the coming decades. A substantial part of the fleet being

pure EVs will help OEMs in hitting these targets.

The U.S. government is also in the process of framing a national policy for autonomous

cars, with a promised investment $4 billion over the course of the next 10 years to

“accelerate the development and adoption of safe vehicle automation through real-world

pilot projects” [3]. This strong endorsement of the Federal government towards clean

energy along with autonomous capabilities will help in the implementation of the proposed

model.

One major obstacle for the implementation of our model is the possible resistance from

general public which could result in a political roadblock for implementation of policies

necessary for the successful application of our model. The changes we propose could

lead to public anxiety related to displacement of jobs and altered commute behaviors

These issues have been addressed in the Stakeholders and Economics section.

Economics

As has always been, economics will revolve around the value proposition for the

consumer. The success and sustainability of the model will depend on the economic

feasibility and acceptability by the consumers. In the section below we analyze the

current economic model of transportation for the consumer and compare it to the value

proposition the proposed model can provide.

While the car is one of the major investments made by any consumer, ironically, it is an

asset that sits idle for more than 90% of its life and depreciates with time along with heavy

liability of maintenance. The consumer wants to move from one place to another without

any hassles. At present the only options available are to either own a car or use expensive

taxicabs and crowded public transport.

While the most common choice is to maintain a personal vehicle, the cost of car

ownership can include down payments, lease/loan payments, maintenance/repair cost,

insurance cost, fuel cost, and property taxes wherever applicable. Considering these

parameters, we evaluated the cost of ownership for different categories of vehicle. The

Honda Civic was chosen as a compact car, the Honda Accord was chosen in the midsize

sedan category, the Audi A4 as a premium segment vehicle and the Corvette Z06 as a

special vehicle. The cost of ownership for these categories of vehicle are tabulated below

considering 5 years of ownership and 15000 miles per year travel [4].

Similarly, the data from the United States Department of Transportation, indicates the

annual cost of owning a car in USA in 2014 as around $8698, considering 15000 miles

as the average annual miles travelled by a person in USA. This gives a monthly cost of

around $725 [5].

We propose to offer subscription with different options as standard, premium or special

depending on the customer preference. The present cost of ownership can be used as a

reference price point for the subscription service.

The subscription cost with the proposed model can achieve significant lower cost than

the cost of ownership as the utilization of vehicle can be improved or in other words the

car is shared by more users than it is in the current model. The key cost implication is

from the autonomous capability of the vehicle. As per a Morgan Stanley report the cost

of adding autonomous capability is $10000 which can be reduced to half within a decade

[6]. This cost can be overcome by fuel savings and productivity cost of the customers.

Infrastructure

There are four major infrastructure requirements that we envisage for our proposal. First

are the electrically driven autonomous pods which would be plying the intracity routes.

The automotive industry is moving aggressively toward completely autonomous as well

as pure Electric Vehicles, and are close to developing feasible models of the same, and

our proposition will only serve as a catalyst for this radical change.

Next are the transition centers where the users have to switch from intracity to intercity

zones or vice-versa. With one third of the built landscape in United States comprised of

parking lots, converting them to transition centers is the most viable solution. With

autonomous capabilities, distribution of transition centers at different locations would not

be a concern.

The third infrastructure requirement is charging stations required for the electric

autonomous pods. For intracity utilization, very small driving ranges are required. Fast-

charging stations or a battery swapping model can be adopted for this. For long distance

travel liquid fuels will remain as the major source of energy, with long distance electric

vehicles receiving support in the form of lane-charging and charging stations at fuel

pumps.

One of the most important infrastructure change is the network used to manage the fleet

of pods. Vehicle to vehicle(V2V) connectivity will be a key technology for autonomous

capability and also for efficient fleet management. Logistics companies like Uber© will play

a major role in meeting these requirements.

Marketing

Our transportation model has been divided into two major categories – Intracity and

Intercity. Both of these models cater to the needs of the stakeholders distinctively, thus

the marketing strategy should be planned accordingly.

Intracity: The current transportation model faces many problems in high population

density areas. Problems such as finding a parking spot, spending hours on short

commutes due to traffic and continuously degrading air quality are just a few that come

to mind. Our model solves these problems by the use of on-demand autonomous electric

cars made available to commuters in these areas. We expect OEMs to support this model

as it provides opportunities to sell fleets of cars to service providers. Furthermore, there

is a possibility that OEMs themselves may act as service providers thus securing a steady

and predictable cash flow through subscriptions.

We suggest the overhaul of the current transportation model which requires widespread

acceptance for its success. To achieve our goals, we propose the following strategies:

Creating “autonomous only” zones in select areas in select cities showcasing the

effectiveness of our model. These zones will also function as testing grounds for

our model allowing a robust implementation later.

Running ad campaigns to create awareness in target areas using billboards and

digital media

Intercity: We have envisioned a model that assimilates the new and old, thus we assert

that public acceptance would not be a problem. We base our marketing strategy for our

intercity model on the reduction of travelling costs between cities and reducing the stress

of driving long distances by providing autonomous alternatives. Our model allows for a

centralized and managed transportation system which would enable predictive and

effective allocation of resources for service providers (Amtrak©, Greyhound©

etc.) Additionally, by using shared vehicles we give the marginalized section of the

society easy access to long distance commutes.

Supply chain

The supply chain for our business model varies with demographics with all the final value

flowing to the customer who is at its center. The supply chain has been varied with

demographics to cater to the variation in demand of the customer in different scenarios.

The complete supply chain has been divided broadly to cater to two demographics in

which the proposed transportation has been divided: Intracity and Intercity.

Intracity Supply Chain: The primary service offered by the Intracity supply chain to our

customer is the fleet of electric autonomous pods. The pods are manufactured by the pod

manufacturing companies or conventional automotive OEMs. The pod fleet is run and

maintained by the subscription company. This fleet size will vary depending on the city

and its population. The pod maintenance centers will be operated by the pod

manufacturing companies and the electric charging infrastructure will be maintained by

private stakeholders involved in this business. The charging can be plug-in in the coming

years and will transition to wireless charging in the future when the wireless technology

becomes more efficient and prevalent. To estimate the charging frequency of pods, we

consider the data of NYC yellow cabs. The yellow cabs do 485,000 trips/day with a total

fleet of 25,000 cabs. This gives us the trips/day for one cab to be 485,000/25,000=19.2.

The average commute per trip is around 2.6 miles and this gives us a total commute of

(19.2*2.6) = 50 miles/day. Considering a nominal range of 25 miles for a pod, a single

pod would require two recharging cycles per day which ensures a smooth operation and

lesser hindrance in their operation.

Intercity Supply Chain: The primary service offered by intracity supply chain to our

central customer is the fleet of subscription cars and mass transit vehicles which will again

be sourced by the subscription companies from the automotive OEMs. These transit

options can be based on any powertrain architecture and thus the existing infrastructure

will be sufficient to meet the needs of this fleet in terms of fueling and repairs. The electric

charging highway infrastructure is being assumed to be there in place on few highways

which will then require the intercity supply chain to adjust the electric cars in its fleet

keeping in mind the charging infrastructure.

Final service transfers: The final service will be delivered to the customer with the help

of a mobile app of the subscription company for the purpose of ordering of the cars and

establishing the payment gateway. The cars will be delivered to the customer at her/his

home if she/he lives outside the intracity radius; with pods taking her/him to the transition

fleet parking zone if she/he lives inside the intracity boundaries.

Conclusion:

We believe that in the coming decades, the transportation needs of customers will change

drastically and current infrastructure will not be able to cope with demand, especially in

urban areas. Increasingly stringent emission norms also present a challenge to OEMs

with sole reliance on combustion engines. Our model presents a solution which makes

maximum possible use of the current infrastructure while also taking into account future

technological advancements as well as environmental concerns. With the shifting

consumer focus from goods to services, we believe that the subscription model will act

as a form of loose ownership that will satisfy the needs of both existing consumers as well

as coming generations.

References:

[1] http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php

[2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/28/obama-administration-

finalizes-historic-545-mpg-fuel-efficiency-standard

[3] http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/dot-initiatives-accelerating-

vehicle-safety-innovations-01142016

[4] http://www.kbb.com/new-cars/total-cost-of-ownership/

[5]http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportati

on_statistics/html/table_03_17.htm

[6] Shanker, Ravi, et al. “Autonomous Cars: Self-Driving the New Industry Paradigm”

Morgan Stanley

[7] http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/pdf/2014_taxicab_fact_book.pdf

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php

http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/dot-initiatives-accelerating-vehicle-safety-innovations-01142016

http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/dot-initiatives-accelerating-vehicle-safety-innovations-01142016

http://www.kbb.com/new-cars/total-cost-of-ownership/

http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/pdf/2014_taxicab_fact_book.pdf

Automation and Efficiency: Driverless Vehicles and the Hyperloop

University of Colorado at Boulder

P a g e | 1

Introduction:

To accurately predict what America’s transportation landscape will be in thirty years is

unachievable. After we asked Joe Sanfillipo, Uber’s Operations Manager for Colorado, what

Uber’s plans for automation are, he responded, “We can’t say where we’ll be in six months.”

This is a complex industry with strong competition, a web of interconnected stakeholders, and

rapid change. “We are competing with Google and Apple to be the first to [the automated car]

market,” Sanfillipo continued.

We see two main concepts emerging that will drive the future of transportation: self-

driving vehicles, which are an emergent technology comprised of both existing and developing

tech, and the Hyperloop, which is currently being tested by several companies and universities.

Herein we will discuss the implications of these advanced technologies, the required cultural

shift to achieve adoption, and the challenges related to infrastructure development, financing,

and marketing for these developing national resources.

Where are we today?

In 2012, the United States accounted for 25% of global transportation energy use, thirteen

million barrels of oil equivalent per day. Within the US, 28% of all energy used was for

transportation1, while on-road passenger transportation comprises over 60% of that total2.

The average passenger car in 2008 emitted 368.4 g of carbon dioxide for every mile

driven. Assuming an average of 12,000 miles driven/year for each car, this amounts to 9,737.44

pounds/year emitted for every car in the United States3. Therefore, there are roughly four tons of

1 - Energy Explained, Your Guide To Understanding Energy http://www.eia.gov/Energy explained/?page=us_energy_transportation 2 U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analy sis. (n.d.). Retrieved February 3, 2016, from http://www.eia.gov/today inenergy/detail.cfm?id=23832 3 United States, EPA, Transportation and Air Quality . (2008, October). Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. Retrieved February 3, 2016, from http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/420f08024.pdf

P a g e | 2

greenhouse gases in the air caused by every car on the road4. Similar statistics show the average

annual emissions for a light-duty truck as 13,572.69 pounds of carbon dioxide. All combined,

transportation contributes roughly 30% of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.5 From these

large and increasing emission rates, we can see the growing magnitude of carbon dioxide’s effect

on our air quality. Therefore, it is essential that we rethink transportation in the United States in

order to keep our air clean.

In 2014, a mere 5% of energy for transportation was generated from renewable sources.

The remaining 95% of energy comes from petroleum (92%) and natural gas (3%)6. It will take

time to transition to renewables. However, this change is necessary eventually, because estimates

from BP predict that the world supply of petroleum will run out in 2067 at current production

rates7. Although technology is expected to improve to some extent, the United States must be

prepared for the worst and explore other options. As Royal Dutch Shell discusses in “Shell

Energy Scenarios 2050”, there is no single solution to transportation energy sources8. Hence, we

must explore many options, and transition out of petroleum dependence over the course of 30

years.

In order to address current challenges facing the US transportation sector, we have

examined technological advances and cultural changes. Government involvement, corporate

interests, and consumer preferences are taken into account, along with our own informed

imagination. We foresee a three-pronged, overlapping approach. Taking inspiration from ride-

4 Carbon Emissions from Cars | American Forests. (n.d.). Retrieved January 21, 2016, from https://www.americanforests.org/a-carbon-conundrum/ 5 Car Emissions and Global Warming. (n.d.). Retrieved January 21, 2016, from http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/car-emissions-and-global-warming#.VsZmjvkrLIU 6 U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Primary Energy Consumption by Source and Sector, 2014. Retrieved February 15, 2016, from https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy /data/monthly/pdf/flow/css_2014_energy .pdf 7 USA Today , The world has 53.3 years of oil left. Retrieved February 15, 2016, from http://www.usatoday .com/story/money/business/2014/06/28/the-world-was-533-y ears-of-oil-left/11528999/ 8 Shell energy scenarios to 2050 (Publication). (n.d.). Retrieved February 15, 2016, from Shell website: http://www.shell.com/content/dam/shell/static/public/downloads/brochures/corporate-pkg/scenarios/shell-energy -scenarios2050.pdf

P a g e | 3

sharing services, we plan to deploy a fleet of self-driving cars driven by computers to maximize

efficiency and minimize accidents. Automation can be implemented in cars running internal

combustion engines or electric motors. Over time we recommend that automobiles transition to

electric motors, and that our grid be powered by renewables. In suburban and rural settings,

driverless cars would be privately owned but tap into the same control grid as their urban

counterparts. For long-distance transportation, we utilize prototype technology known as the

Hyperloop as an alternative to cross-country driving and air travel.

Societal Goals

Societal benefits would include numerous public health advantages. Adoption of self-

driving cars will produce a drastic reduction in automobile accidents. Eighty four percent of all

accidents are due to driver error. Some ethical dilemmas must be resolved before widespread

adoption but the effect overall will be decreased accidents and increased consumer safety.

Reduced CO2 from greater system efficiency, and over time more renewable energy use,

will also lead to public health benefits. Urban air pollution and traffic injuries cause 2.5 million

deaths per year9. Air pollution is linked to a number of common diseases including cancer, heart

disease, asthma, and other respiratory diseases. The Organization for Economic Co-operation

and Development (OECD) produced a study in 2014 that reported that 3.5 million people die

annually from outdoor air pollution, most of which comes from transportation. Furthermore,

these illnesses and deaths come with huge economic consequences. Employers lose 14 million

work days every year when asthma keeps adults out of the workplace. The OECD study found

9 Health in the green economy (Rep.). (n.d.). Retrieved January 24, 2016, from World Health Organization website: http://www.who.int/hia/hgebrief_transp.pdf

P a g e | 4

that the economic costs to the OECD countries plus China and India totaled $3.5 trillion, with

half of the economic cost of air pollution coming from road transport10.

Our plan to implement the Hyperloop and automated vehicles over the next thirty years

would have great environmental benefits for the whole world. Because the leading greenhouse

gases (CO2, CH4, NO2, and CFCs) have long lifespans, they mix and disperse evenly through the

earth’s atmosphere11. America’s efforts to tackle transportation emissions would affect the whole

world.

The effects of climate change are enumerated often. Despite some government action,

trends in sustainable lifestyle choices, and a few corporate leaders making conscious strategic

moves, we are still emitting GHGs beyond the recommended levels. Adopting automated

vehicles and the Hyperloop will reduce GHG emissions. Some estimates show that the number

of vehicles in urban areas will be reduced by 90%12, cutting global transportation emissions by

more than 20%. This will have far-reaching effects including biodiversity, food production,

social systems, health, and migration and conflict.

Automated Vehicles

Pull out your phone, press a button and enter your destination. Moments later, far quicker

than Uber or Lyft can claim today, a car arrives. Climb in and off you go. Today, more and more

people believe that access trumps ownership. The shift toward an infrastructure comprised of

fully automated vehicles will take thirty years or longer, yet the cultural shift has already started.

10 The Cost of Air Pollution. (n.d.). Retrieved January 24, 2016, from http://www.oecd.org/environment/the-cost-of-air-pollution-9789264210448-en.htm 11 Dunbar, B. (2005). Methane's Impacts on Climate Change May Be Twice Previous Estimates. Retrieved February 09, 2016, from http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory /2005/methane_prt.htm 12 IF AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES RULE THE WORLD. (n.d.). Retrieved February 12, 2016, from http://worldif.economist.com/article/11/what-if-autonomous-vehicles-rule-the-world-from-horseless-to-driverless

P a g e | 5

While ridesharing firms compete with tech giants to be the first in this new space, customers

wait.

Younger generations are used to two-sided markets in which a company provides a

platform for services. We have seen a proliferation of this type of company structure in the last

two decades with the ubiquity of the internet. The internet and the continuing connectivity of

things has increased competition and consumers are eager for simple interactions with suppliers

and better service. The internet has made innovation faster and the world smaller.

Couple an explosion of connectivity and innovation with stagnated wages for American

workers, a reinvention of the 1940’s “American Dream,” and more densely populated urban

centers than ever, and you get a recipe that calls for automated vehicles. This switch to

automated vehicles will reduce yearly transportation costs for consumers who are readily

switching from ownership to access. The marketing for this service will grow organically both

from established, dominant brands like Ford, GM, Apple, and Google, to newer startups such as

Uber, Lyft, EverCar, and others.

The advertising of these companies will follow consumer demand. An example of a

positioning statement for Uber ten years from now may read: “For riders who value choice, Uber

is the automated vehicle provider that has the greatest variety of vehicles to meet every need.”

We will see private industry lead development and ownership of this upcoming market. A large

city like Denver may have several options for automated vehicle companies while the largest

cities such as Los Angeles, New York City, Mumbai, or Seoul would have many options. Cities

with fewer than one million people may only have one or two options.

We are starting to see the cultural shift toward access over ownership and automated

vehicles over human controlled vehicles. The full shift to automated vehicles will take time, and

P a g e | 6

a variety of companies will vie for dominance at each stage of the process. Companies like Uber

and Lyft are not thinking just of who will win the current fight for the ride-sharing economy, but

who will win in the future when they have no contractor-drivers, only computer algorithms. Each

stage of the process will see a highly competitive market between established goliaths and

hopeful Davids.

At this point we must engage our imaginations. What would our nation’s infrastructure

look like if we largely abandon human-directed vehicles? Our nation has been built around this

form of transportation for one hundred years. A rich history, longer than most lives, yet only a

few generations. There have been changes throughout: first there were electric vehicles, then

combustion engines took over. First cars could be afforded only by the rich, then came Henry

Ford and the assembly line. We’ve seen innovation consistently by the automobile industry.

Seatbelts, all-wheel drive, anti-lock brakes, windshield wipers, heads up displays, back-up

cameras, and countless other inventions mark every year of new models. This is a fast paced,

responsive industry, ready to greet new demands.

Taking inspiration from ride-sharing services, we plan to deploy a fleet of vehicles driven

by computers to maximize efficiency and minimize accidents. This would have far reaching

effects beyond consumer convenience.

Autonomous Vehicle Infrastructure

Although one of our primary goals is to reduce carbon emissions via efficient, electric,

self-driving cars, we do not deem it a necessity that all our cars are initially emission-free. This is

why car companies will initiate car deployment by releasing both electric and hybrid cars to the

P a g e | 7

market. This addresses the reality that 95% of transportation runs on petroleum13, and that we

have to phase out of gas-powered vehicles over time.

The automobile manufacturers sell mostly through a business to consumer market today.

There is a strong correlation between sales, economic growth, and oil price. Sales are highly

levered by churn in vehicle replacement. The industry is highly competitive and relies on heavy

R&D investments and marketing expenditures. Recent trends see more niche vehicles such as

cross-overs and less mass sales in mainstream sedan models. The distribution is decentralized,

and manufacturers rely heavily on a network of car dealers that supply the sales, and aftermarket

maintenance. Our system would change sales to mostly business to business whereby the

manufacturers would sell directly to fleet management companies, or manage the fleets

themselves. This cuts down costs considerably because there is no need for dealerships.

American car manufacturers have applied heavy automation investments recently in order

to lower production cost. The transition to automated vehicles will see a reduction in the number

and variety of vehicles produced, further reducing costs for manufacturers. The every-day car

will come in only two varieties: one a “cab” that holds two people, the other a large capacity

vehicle capable of holding a family and going to IKEA or Home Depot.

Our suburban rental solution would rely on a larger array of models. With autonomous

cars, we believe cars will transition to a basic consumption good. However, the cultural shift

from the personal vehicle being an integral part of our identity to a transportation being a shared

commodity will take many years. During that transition, there will still be many options in the

suburban rental model. Consumers will still find pride in renting a beautiful luxury vehicle.

13 Transportation Overview. (n.d.). Retrieved February 03, 2016, from http://www.c2es.org/energy/use/transportation

P a g e | 8

Petroleum prices are expected to begin skyrocketing in the upcoming 30 years due to

expected oil runout in 206614. This is under the assumption that technology does not improve

and no additional oil reserves are discovered compared to today. Although the oil market is

volatile, as shown in the past few years, the environmental and social impacts of self-driving cars

and alternative transportation methods cannot be ignored. Therefore, we plan to have close to no

privately owned cars in urban environments and few privately owned cars in suburbs.

To do this, we recommend piloting the program in the Denver metro area. Then, we will

implement the cars in other metro areas across the country, with the same idea that their

popularity will spread to surrounding suburbs. These pilot programs in America’s largest cities

will occur in the first ten years of the implementation. Predictions show that ten million self-

driving cars will be on the road by 2020, so the technology will already be heavily in use at this

time. Therefore, ten years will give substantial time to further test and refine the technology.

Our financial evaluation focuses on the Denver metro area. This evaluation can be

expanded to other metropolitan areas. We accounted for employees, R&D, the cost to produce

every car, maintenance cost and software development. On ten years investment, we end up

close to $39 billion (See Appendix 1). Most of the cost is based on the swarming EV. This cost

might sound high, but considering a automatic target of this entire population, it brings the cost

down to less than $3,650 per household and per year.

Some investment would be needed, mainly if the industry is leaving behind combustible

engines. These investments are already underway and we recommend accelerating them. In the

suburban model, rental companies would take a major role as car ownership would decline

14 As Solar Panel Efficiencies Keep Improving, It's Time To Adopt Some New Metrics. (n.d.). Retrieved February 09, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterdetwiler/2013/07/16/as-solar-panel-efficiencies-keep-improving-its-time-to-adopt-some-new-metrics/#5a203a4449d7

P a g e | 9

rapidly. Car makers would face two major options, either build a rental infrastructure from

scratch or buy rental companies and their know-how and client database. In order to maximize

market penetration rapidly, we recommend buying the car rental companies like Hertz, who has

offices throughout towns in the USA instead of just at airports like many others.

One of the largest challenges with deploying self-driving cars is effectively storing and

refueling them. In urban areas, already-existing parking garages could be used to park inactive

vehicles. For vehicles operating with fossil fuels, current gas stations could provide refueling. As

electric vehicles are integrated into our urban fleet, parking garages could be retrofitted with

charging stations. Large parking and storage buildings become impractical, however, in suburban

and rural areas. Outside of urban centers cars will be housed and charged at home. Self-driving

cars, therefore, would be privately owned in these areas.

One aspect that eases adoption of this system is that is does not disrupt current

infrastructure. By removing up to 90% of the vehicles on the roads, construction can slow. We

can periodically upgrade technology or remove lanes. Parking the cars overnight in garages that

already exist so no additional storage will be needed initially. The main source of new

infrastructure would be data centers and charging stations.

Hyperloop

The first transcontinental railroad was completed in 1869. It was a big moment for

America. The pace of our westward expansion was accelerating, and with the help of the railroad

we could more easily conquer the land. It was our crowning achievement, the machine that

powered manifest destiny.

Today the state of our rail passenger transportation is poor. Passenger cars can be

compared to greyhound busses. They are dirty and uncomfortable; the last choice for

P a g e | 10

transportation. The train, which is part of America’s story, an integral part of our identity, now

illustrates our outdated infrastructure. We now have a promising replacement to mark a new era

in American innovation and leadership. It is fast, convenient, and clean.

The Hyperloop is a mode of transportation currently in development that is similar in

several ways to a train or railway. However, the Hyperloop makes use of near-vacuum tubes to

bring friction and air resistance close to zero. The compartments, also called pods, are levitated

off of the ground using magnetism, additionally reducing the friction of the design. With this, the

Hyperloop is expected to be able to safely reach speeds above 700 miles per hour. Theoretically,

with solar panels installed along the entirety of the track, the system could be 100% powered by

the sun. Though the Hyperloop is still in the process of being tested, should estimates of its

capabilities be accurate, it will be the fastest, most sustainable, and cheapest form of mass transit

available in the near future.

In 2012, Elon Musk first described this theoretical fifth mode of transportation. In the

three years that followed, a swath of work has gone into researching this new transportation

method. An informal team of engineers worked on initial designs for the system, which

culminated in a white paper15. SpaceX has funded a university competition to design the most

effective Hyperloop pod, which is now entering its second stage. In this stage, twenty-two teams

are moving on to build prototype versions of their designs, which will then be run at a SpaceX-

owned test track16. Two private companies have been founded, Hyperloop Technologies and

Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, and both are constructing their own test tracks and

pods.

15 Musk, E. (2013, August 12). Hy perloop Alpha [Hy perloop White paper]. 16 Hawkins, Andrew, “MIT wins SpaceX’s Hy perloop competition, and Elon Musk made a cameo,” http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/30/10877442/elon-musk-spacex-hy perloop-competition-awards, (January 30, 2016).

P a g e | 11

The system infrastructure is comparable to that of an electric railway. The path is

elevated off the ground, and holds a near-vacuum tube. The pods begin at a station where

consumers board. Once the pod is inside the tube, the system seals and the pod remains inside

until at the destination or if an emergency occurs. Solar panels line the track but they are also

grid-integrated. To maximize the speed of the pods, the tracks are kept fairly straight between

stations.

Hyperloop Infrastructure

The infrastructure for the Hyperloop will be largely original; however, the designs mimic

technology already in place. The Hyperloop will connect largely populated cities that are

somewhat close in proximity, such as San Francisco and Los Angeles. One of the easiest places

to place Hyperloop terminals will be in the airports of these cities. There is ample space to create

these platforms as well as docking structures for pods that aren’t in use. The infrastructure that

needs to be built consists of the transit tubes and the electricity pylons along the rail. These are

parallel designs to train rails and electricity lines respectively, requiring construction cost but not

a heavy amount of design input.

A privately-owned company, Hyperloop Technologies, has begun construction on a two-

mile test track in Nevada17 and more companies have stated that they plan to build similar tracks

in the near future. With this groundwork underway, it seems feasible that the first of these

systems could be deployed as early as 15 years.

17 Hy perloop Technologies CEO Rob Lloy d: 2016 will be a breakthrough y ear. (2016). Retrieved February 13, 2016, from http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/hy perloop-technologies-ceo-rob-lloy d-2016-will-be-breakthrough-y ear-1536632

P a g e | 12

The Hyperloop will easily run in parallel with existing infrastructure. With its overhead

design, the rail can traverse many kinds of terrain including dense urban areas, allowing for the

uninterrupted flow of current modes of transportation.

We built two financial models (see Appendix 2) in order to build our recommendation.

We created an evaluation per mile based on two publications. An expensive analysis18, and a

more optimistic view19. Based on these articles we calculated a price per round trip mile.

Evaluations range from $4 to $20 million a round trip mile. We also plan for maintenance cost

and buying Hyperloop pods.

In order to find a suitable market for Hyperloop, we focused on the most used flight

routes in the US to create our network. The following routes were our based option based on air

traffic: NYC - DC - Atlanta - Denver - LA, Chicago - Dallas - SF, Atlanta - Miami, LA -

Seattle20.

Based on these routes, and the calculated mileage cost, a 50 year investment should be

$80 and $172 billion. To better understand the scale of the investment, we envision that half of

the current air traffic would be captured by the Hyperloop, giving us an estimated cost per

passenger and per year between $450, and $4,450. If we include long distance road travel cost

per passenger would be drastically reduce. Additionally, and beyond the scope of this report, the

Hyperloop would be capable of transporting goods, so it would further capture market share both

from trains and from trucking companies.

Stakeholder Analysis

18 Hy perloop Sy stem Vs. High Speed Train: What's Best for California? (TSLA) | Investopedia. (2015). Retrieved January 27, 2016, from http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/050815/elon-musks-hy perloop-economically -feasible.asp 19 Elon Musk's Hy perloop: Expensive, But Doable | OilPrice.com. (n.d.). Retrieved January 27, 2016, from http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Elon-Musks-Hy perloop-Expensive-But-Doable.html 20 Passenger Travel Facts and Figures 2015 United States Department of Transportation. Retrieved January 27, 2016, from http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/publications/passenger_travel_2015

P a g e | 13

Automobile manufacturers would be affected by our urban model. Creating the

autonomous fleet car models would not be far off from current practices, allowing car makers to

be a step ahead industry newcomers. But the scope of the business would drastically change.

From selling cars, to servicing transportation, car makers would become software designers,

creating traffic algorithm based on supply and demand, mobile app designer, and the business

would become closer to Uber and Lyft, alongside car production.

Depending on how regulations change, we see two ways the market could go. If the

market regulates itself, we could see multiple players in a same city, providing services to the

same customers. If city and local governments were to substitute their local public transportation

system with the autonomous car fleet, car makers could become official transportation providers.

Although we believe the market should regulate itself, we think the best opportunity for car

makers lies in local government contracts. Finally we also see a new revenue stream for the car

makers by selling the meta-data gathered on users.

The manufacturers’ employees would also be affected. Production of cars will slow

down and automation will be more integrated. Also, the typical car maker employee will change

for tech profiles, and rental management employees, and maintenance profiles (see the financial

analysis).

We believe that insurance companies will soon realize the value of autonomous cars

and dis-incentivize driving your own car. In fact, three big American insurance, Travelers,

Mercury General, and Cincinnati Financial all noted in their February, 2015 SEC filings that

automated vehicles were threatening to disrupt their businesses21.

21 IF AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES RULE THE WORLD. (n.d.). Retrieved February 12, 2016, from http://worldif.economist.com/article/11/what-if-autonomous-vehicles-rule-the-world-from-horseless-to-driverless

P a g e | 14

Today most of the electricity is produced with coal and gas (66%). Considering the very

low cost of oil and natural gas today, the cost of operating oil rigs is rising. Coupled with

international agreements to lower greenhouse gas emissions (Paris 2015) and an increasing

public opinion to minimize environmental risks, we believe the energy companies have a large

role to play in the transportation of tomorrow.

Electricity production is inefficient to produce and deliver, with a total transmission loss

of 6%22 while thermal efficiency of fossil fuel plants ranges from 35% (coal) to 60% (natural

gas). The main advantage that traditional power plants have over renewable energy is that they

can be cycled on and off quickly (especially natural gas plants), matching supply with demand

and keeping prices stable. As battery technology improves, we can better control the availability

and reliability of renewable sources. The average cost of an installed watt has fallen by 24.4

percent between 2012 and 2013 and that trend will continue.

Energy companies have a great opportunity to take advantage of the temporary market

panic on solar panel producers and installation to consolidate and invest in the market in order to

lead the market. Low gas and oil cost are making profitability harder to reach, and making

business riskier. Renewables, especially as storage improves, will be the key to a much cleaner,

integrated and easier power source to manage.

One of the great benefits of our proposal is to lower car traffic. This will generate a lot of

positive externalities. First reduce road size, for instance from five lanes to two. This will enable

cities to create lively walkable downtown areas that should boost local retail business. Road

maintenance also will be drastically cut and allow tax savings and reallocation of spending.

22 U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analy sis. (n.d.). Retrieved February 15, 2016, from https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=105

http://www.seia.org/research-resources/us-solar-market-insight-q1-2013

http://www.seia.org/research-resources/us-solar-market-insight-q1-2013

P a g e | 15

Parking will disappear, and will allow new real estate investment and create new business

opportunities, including an increase in real estate promotion

Our recommendation wouldn't be complete if we forgot Tesla, Google, Uber and its

competitors. Google is already driving its autonomous vehicles 3 million miles a day23. Uber,

for whom our recommendation seems a natural business extension, is testing autonomous vehicle

in Pittsburg24.

Conclusion

We aren’t proposing the adoption of any revolutionary new technology. Each part of our

proposal is currently in testing and will soon be implemented. While the transportation industry

has traditionally moved slowly, we are seeing the beginning of a rapid transformation fueled by

technological advances and changes in culture. Behemoths of business are waking up to find

their industry’s landscape is shifting under their feet. Fossil fuels are quickly losing market share

to renewables. Automakers are realizing that car ownership is not the goal for young people that

it once was. Technology is ready to take on a new market and transform it.

Our transportation system will become much more integrated and simplified in the

coming thirty years. The Hyperloop will connect large international air terminals with urban city

centers. From the city center you can take an automated vehicle to wherever you live- be it a

suburban or rural setting. There will be no need to own a vehicle and no need for insurance. You

and your family will enjoy better health, along with a healthier planet. You will spend less on

transportation, and traffic congestion will be lessened so you will have more free time.

23 Google's self-driving cars tear up 3 million miles a day . (n.d.). Retrieved February 13, 2016, from http://www.cnet.com/news/how-googles-self-driving-cars-drive-3-million-miles-a-day/ 24 Uber is testing autonomous car tech in Pittsburgh. (2015). Retrieved February 13, 2016, from http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology /news/a25781/uber-is-testing-autonomous-car-tech-in-pittsburgh/

P a g e | 16

While this industry is rapidly changing and it is hard to say where we will be in thirty

years, it is a good exercise to envision the future and build predictive models. As events unfold,

we can update these predictions, bringing us closer to an accurate understanding of the future.

We look forward to seeing what the future holds.

Appendix 1i- Automated Vehicle Financial Analysis

Automated Vehicle Financial Analysis

Units /

employee Cost per

unit Yearly

evaluation

Investment length (year)

Total Investment

over 10 years Software R&D $1,000 $80,000 $80,000,000 10 $800,000,000 Car R&D $6,000,000,000 Car production $6,000,000,000 Total investment $6,800,000,000 Markets (states) 50 Investment by markets $136,000,000 Swarming EV $250,000 $15,000 10 $37,500,000,000 Management $50 $80,000 $4,000,000 10 $40,000,000 Operation Include assistance $150 $50,000 $7,500,000 10 $75,000,000 Include Mechanical $2,000 $50,000 $100,000,000 10 $1,000,000,000 Include cleaning $150 $20,000 $3,000,000 10 $30,000,000 Total $194,500,000 $38,781,000,000

Appendix 2- Hyperloop Evaluationii

Item Low cost High cost One car for 100 passengers $140,000.00 $2,000,000.00 One mile of Tube $5,000,000.00 One mile for installation $5,000,000.00 One mile of installed tube $2,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 One mile round trip $4,000,000.00 $20,000,000.00

P a g e | 17

Airport Passenger per year Passenger per day 50% of the passengers

Atlanta 410,000,000.00 1,123,287.67 561,643.84 New York 380,000,000.00 1,041,095.89 520,547.95 Chicago 380,000,000.00 1,041,095.89 520,547.95 LA 340,000,000.00 931,506.85 465,753.42 Dallas 310,000,000.00 849,315.07 424,657.53 DC 275,000,000.00 753,424.66 376,712.33 SF 270,000,000.00 739,726.03 369,863.01 Denver 250,000,000.00 684,931.51 342,465.75 Total 2,615,000,000.00 7,164,383.56 3,582,191.78

Mileage Miles Passengers Pods NY-DC-Atlanta-Denver-LA 3286 1705479 8527 Chicago- Dallas-SF 2658 1315068 6575 Atlanta - miami 663 561644 2808 LA - Seattle 1142 465753 2329 Total mileage 7749 4047945 20240

Low high Cost of main lines $30,996,000,000.00 $154,980,000,000.00 Maintenance $1,549,800,000.00 $7,749,000,000.00 Pods cost $2,833,561,643.84 $404,794,520,547.95 Total cost over 50 years $80,323,561,643.84 $792,244,520,547.95 Annual cost $1,606,471,232.88 $15,844,890,410.96 Cost per air passenger per year considering only 50% $448.46 $4,423.24

Team Members:

Adrian Smith (336) 692-4621 [email protected] MBA

Alexandre Dubernard [email protected] MBA

Andrew Weidner (512)740-1484 [email protected] Chemical Engineering

Katherine Mcquie (303) 681-6399 [email protected] Environmental Engineering

mailto:[email protected]




P a g e | 18

Chris Quinn (720)684-7971 [email protected] Electrical & Computer

Engineering

i Why Does It Cost So Much For Automakers To Develop New Models? (n.d.). Retrieved February 03, 2016, from http://www.autoblog.com/2010/07/27/why -does-it-cost-so-much-for-automakers-to-develop-new-models/ ii Passenger Travel Facts and Figures 2015 | Bureau of Transportation Statistics. (n.d.). Retrieved February 12, 2016, from http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/publications/passenger_travel_2015


©2016 Fuels InstituteDisclaimer: The opinions and views expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the individuals on the Fuels Institute Board of Directors and the Fuels Institute Board of Advisors, or any contributing organization to the Fuels Institute. The Fuels Institute makes no warranty, express or implied, nor does it assume any legal liability or responsibility for the use of the report or any product, or process described in these materials.

1600 Duke Street Suite 700 Alexandria, VA 22314

© 20

16 Fuels InstituteFuels Institute

(703) 518-7970 FuelsInstitute.org @FuelsInstitute

fuels institute case competition: future of … fuels institute case...fuels institute case...

Documents